Every acquittal of actual culprit a blot on justice system: SC

The Supreme Court has observed that every acquittal of an actual culprit is a blot on the criminal justice system, cautioning courts below against acquitting persons accused of serious crimes by loosely applying the principle of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.

“Every instance of acquittal of an actual culprit revolts against the sense of security of the society and acts as a blot on the criminal justice system. Therefore, not only should no innocent face punishment for something that he has not done, but equally, no culprit should manage an acquittal on the basis of unreasonable doubts and misapplication of procedure,” a Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma said.

The Bench set aside a verdict of the Patna High Court which had acquitted two men charged under the POCSO Act for the rape of a minor girl on the basis of minor contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.

Restoring the rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs 85,000/- each imposed on the accused duo by the trial court, the top court directed them to surrender in two weeks to suffer the remaining sentence.

The Patna High Court had acquitted the two accused, citing discrepancies about the victim’s age, time of the incident, proof of pregnancy and abortion, defects in framing of charges and the legality of a joint trial.

However, the Supreme Court termed these grounds “unsustainable”.

“It is always a matter of utter failure for the system as a whole when a culprit, that too of a heinous sexual offence, manages to walk free by entangling the victim in misapplication of procedural rules, without the knowledge of the victim and without any control of the victim,” the top court said in its September 1 verdict.

Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Sharma sought to dispel misgivings about the principle of beyond reasonable doubt – often invoked by courts to acquit accused in criminal cases, saying it has been misunderstood to mean any and every doubt in the case of the prosecution.

“Often, we come across cases wherein loose acquittals are recorded on the basis of minor inconsistencies, contradictions and deficiencies, by elevating them to the standard of reasonable doubts. A reasonable doubt is one that renders the version of the prosecution as improbable, and leads the Court to believe in the existence and probability of an alternate version of the facts. It is a serious doubt which must be backed by reason,” Justice Sharma wrote.

“The underlying foundation of the principle of beyond reasonable doubt is that no innocent should face punishment for a crime that he has not done. But a flipside of the same, of which we are conscious, is that at times, owing to a mis-application of this principle, actual culprits manage to find their way out of the clutches of law. Such misapplication of this principle, resulting in culprits walking free by taking benefit of doubt, is equally dangerous for the society,” Justice Sharma emphasised.