In this case, the appellants were accused of breaking into and stealing from a shop. Only the offence of house trespass was eventually pressed during the trial against them.
The trial court and the High Court refused to discharge the accused.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the complainant’s claim to have rights over the shop was, prima facie, based on a forged document.
The bench concluded that there was not enough evidence to suspect the appellants of the crime and discharged them from the case.
The top court also opined that the earlier orders of the trial court and the High Court were not reasoned.
“We are satisfied that there is no suspicion, much less strong or grave suspicion that the appellants are guilty of the offence alleged. It would be unjustified to make the appellants face a full-fledged criminal trial in this backdrop,” the Supreme Court said while allowing the appeal.
Source: Barandbench
