The Madras High Court, while overturning the conviction of a man for an acid attack and house trespass, emphasised that courts should adhere to legal evidence rather than moral conviction.

According to the court, moral conviction has no place in criminal justice. The primary objective of a court of law is to establish the truth based on the legal evidence presented by both sides, without being influenced by moral conviction or the severity of the crime. A conviction can only be based on legal evidence, not hypothetical assumptions or unwarranted deductions.

Justice V Sivagnanam highlighted that the administration of justice in the country is founded on the principle that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the current case, the court observed a lack of evidence linking the accused, Vediyappan, to the crime and concluded that he should be acquitted.

The prosecution's case against Vediyappan was that he had entered the victim's house at night and poured sulfuric acid on her face, resulting in injuries. The prosecution also mentioned a dispute between the families regarding a common wall.

The appellant argued that there was no evidence connecting him to the crime. He further stated that all witnesses, except the victim and her parents, turned hostile, and even their testimony was insufficient to establish his involvement. Additionally, he contested the trial court's reliance on an inadmissible confession statement to find him guilty.

The court observed that although the prosecution claimed there was previous enmity, it failed to prove it through evidence. Similarly, the prosecution's argument that the appellant had a strong motive because his marriage proposal to the victim was rejected was also unproven. Thus, the court concluded that the prosecution had not established a motive.

Regarding the appellant's identity, the court noted contradictions between the victim's deposition and her mother's testimony. While the mother claimed to have witnessed the appellant fleeing the scene after hearing her daughter's scream, the victim testified that her mother was sleeping in a nearby tiled house. Furthermore, the victim admitted that she did not see the person who threw acid on her face.

Considering the lack of evidence connecting the appellant to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the court allowed the appeal and overturned the conviction issued by the trial court.