The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's decision to overturn the acquittal of the accused in the 1992 murder case of Mahesh Sahu. The trial court had initially acquitted the appellants due to insufficient evidence, but the High Court later convicted them based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that strong circumstantial evidence can justify a conviction if it meets specific criteria. The judgment underscores the principle that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and highlights the appellate court's role in correcting perverse or impossible findings of lower courts.

1. Case Background

• Incident Overview: The case revolves around the murder of Mahesh Sahu in Damoh in 1992. The deceased was allegedly in a romantic relationship with the sister of the first appellant, which led to his death.
• Trial Court Acquittal: The trial court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

2. High Court's Reversal

• Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence: The High Court reversed the trial court's judgment, convicting the appellants based on circumstantial evidence and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

3. Supreme Court's Review

• Principles of Circumstantial Evidence: The Supreme Court reiterated the conditions under which circumstantial evidence can lead to a conviction, citing established legal precedents.
• Appellate Court's Role: The judgment discussed the limited scope of appellate review in acquittal cases, stating that interference is warranted only when the findings are perverse or impossible.

4. Final Judgment

• Upholding the Conviction: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conviction, emphasizing the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented and the correct application of legal principles by the appellate court.