Acquittal Not to be Interfered Lightly: Punjab & Haryana HC Refuses to Overturn Acquittal in Absence of Perverse Findings

Case Name: Jatinder Talwar v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Date of Judgment: May 01, 2026

Citation: CRR No. 178 of 2026

Bench: Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Held: The High Court held that interference with an acquittal is permissible only in exceptional circumstances where findings are perverse or material evidence has been ignored. In absence of such infirmity, the acquittal cannot be disturbed.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the judgments of the Trial Court and Appellate Court whereby the accused were acquitted in a case arising out of a fatal road accident under Sections 279, 283, 304-A and 427 IPC.

The prosecution case was based primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who was allegedly an eyewitness to the accident. However, during cross-examination, the complainant categorically stated that he had not seen the accident and that the accused had been falsely implicated. This statement significantly weakened the prosecution case.

The petitioner contended that the testimony of the complainant had been wrongly recorded due to a clerical error and that the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the evidence. It was argued that the accused were responsible for the accident and their acquittal was based on misinterpretation of evidence.

The High Court, however, rejected these contentions. It observed that the statement of the complainant was duly recorded, signed, and never challenged at the appropriate stage before the Trial Court or Appellate Court. The plea of clerical error was held to be an afterthought.

The Court further noted that once the complainant disowned being an eyewitness, the prosecution case lost its primary foundation. No other eyewitness was examined, and there was no reliable evidence connecting the accused to the offence. Identification of the vehicles and proof of rash and negligent driving were also not established.

In such circumstances, both the Trial Court and Appellate Court rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court reiterated the settled principle that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and cannot be interfered with lightly unless the findings are perverse, unreasonable, or material evidence has been ignored.

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed. The High Court held that there was no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the findings of the Courts below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. The acquittal of the accused was upheld.