New Delhi, Jan 31: The Supreme Court has quashed a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgement which set aside the acquittal of some persons in a murder case, wherein, it was alleged the doctor performing the autopsy tampered with the evidence to save the accused.

A bench of Justices S B Sinha and V S Sirpurkar felt that if the trial court were to follow the direction of the High Court which had remitted the matter back to the trial court for re-appreciating the evidence, it might eventually lead to the conviction of the accused.

"While hearing the matter afresh in terms of the direction of the high court, the learned trial judge would be bound by the observations made therein and thus, would have no option but to convict the appellants," the apex court said while allowing the appeal filed by the accused Johar and others.

The accused were charged with committing the murder of Umashankar and were acquitted by the sessions court, which instead, held them guilty under section 323 IPC (causing simple injuries).

Though the state did not appeal against the acquittal, the family members of the deceased filed a revision petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which reversed the acquittal.

The High Court which re-appreciated the evidence held the view that autopsy doctor Y K Malaiya had wilfully concealed several injuries on the deceased to protect the accused so that they could not be convicted for murder.

The high court held that the autopsy doctor was guilty under sections 193 and 196 IPC (public servant preparing false evidence to save accused from punishment and ordered that appropriate proceedings be launched against him.

It further directed the trial court to re-appreciate evidence in the case upon which the accused appealed in the apex court.

Upholding the accused's plea, the Supreme Court said the revisionary jurisdiction conferred on the high courts under section 439 and other provisions of the CrPC should be exercised only in an exceptional case to prevent gross miscarriage of justice.

"In the instant case the high court not only entered into the merits of the matter but also analysed the depositions of all the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. It. in particular, went to the extent of criticising the testimony of the autopsy surgeon," the apex court said.

The bench said the high court had erroneously relied upon the evidence of so-called eye-witness to hold the accused guilty and doctor Malaiya of suppressing evidence.

"We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the high court exceeded its jurisdiction in view of the fact that the judgement of the learned trial judge could not be termed to be a perverse one," the bench said, while setting aside the high court order.