The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a petition, seeking to assail the judgment of acquittal dated 04.03.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge in Sessions Trial. The Court observed that unless it is found that the view taken by the trial Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible for the Appellate Court to interfere with the findings of acquittal.
Brief Facts:
The respondent was booked for the commission of an offense under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A search was conducted in the tea shop of the respondent and 142 grams of Charas and one electronic weighing scale were recovered from a tin box kept behind the counter of the shop. The contraband was seized. After trial, the respondent was acquitted by the learned trial Court by not finding the prosecution evidence to be convincing, reliable, and cogent enough to meet the required standard of proof. Hence, the present petition.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the view taken by the learned trial Court is a possible one. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court to doubt the prosecution story are borne from the material on record. Both the independent witnesses have substantially differed not only from the prosecution case but from each other also. This is a valid reason for doubting the prosecution story.
The Court observed that unless it is found that the view taken by the trial Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible for the Appellate Court to interfere with the findings of acquittal. If two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The view taken by the learned trial Court is possible one and there is no material on the basis of which such view can be said to be perverse.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no merit in the petition.
Case Title: State of H.P. v Laxmi
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Hon’ble Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case no.: Cr.MP(M) No. 34 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. I. N. Mehta
Advocate for the Respondents: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :