High Court pulls up trial court for ‘illegal’ conviction

The Madras High Court Bench here has come down heavily upon a trial court for throwing to the winds the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence and “illegally” convicting a youth in a murder case on the ground that he had failed to prove his innocence.

Shocked over the reasons given by the Sessions Court for convicting the accused besides sentencing him to life imprisonment, a Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and V.S. Ravi said the trial judge had failed to note that there was no legal burden on the accused to prove his innocence.

“Under the adversarial system of criminal administration which we have adopted as one of the cardinal principles… the burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the prosecution… There is no reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence,” the Division Bench pointed out.

Pointing out that almost all prosecution witnesses in the case had turned hostile and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever against the accused, the judges said: “Therefore, it is crystal clear that the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused only on mere surmises which is illegal.”

On the submission of Additional Public Prosecutor C. Ramesh that the trial court might have convicted the appellant, K. Vikram of Tiruchi, on moral grounds since he was accused of murdering his elder brother, the judges said that courts of law were expected to deliver judgments only within four corners of law.

“It is not permissible for a court of law to convict an accused on moral grounds in the absence of any evidence to prove the guilt. The trial court is a court of law to do justice according to law and not a court run on moral grounds… We are impelled to say that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction,” they added.

Authoring the judgment, Mr. Justice Nagamuthu also stated that presumption of innocence had been declared as a human right under Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and had also been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Noor Aga’s case in 2008.

Therefore, the Principal District and Sessions Court in Tiruchi should not have convicted the appellant on April 30, 2012 simply because he had failed to prove that he was not present in the house when the murder took place, the Division Bench concluded before setting aside the conviction and sentence.