The Delhi High Court has reiterated that it is settled principle that if the view taken by the ltrial Court 'is a possible view', then the order of acquittal should not be reversed.
The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma while adjudicating upon an appeal observed that in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C, the scope of the appellate Court is to the extent that the judgment of acquittal should not be ordinarily interfered with unless the findings in such judgment are shown to be arrived at by
incorrect or perverse appreciation of material on record and the law.
Brief Facts of the Case
As per the recorded statements of victim, the respondents were pushing and quarrelling with his wife and son who had called him up regarding the same. Upon hearing which he went to the spot and inquired about the same from the respondents, who started abusing him. And minutes after he returned home with his family, the respondents came together with Lathi, Danda and Saria at his residence, entered into his house and assaulted him and his family members. Hence an FIR was registered under Sections 308/452/325/323/34 of IPC and upon investigation charges under sections 308/452/34 IPC were framed against them before the court of competent jurisdiction to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Upon examining the evidence and documents placed on record in support of the chargesheet, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under sections 308/452/34 of IPC. Thus the present criminal appeal under Section 378 (1) of Cr.P.C., had been instituted on behalf of the State assailing the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state submitted that the present judgment had been passed without appreciating the prosecution evidence on record which was clinching and irrefutable. He contended that the impugned judgment is passed on presumption, conjecture and surmises. And that, non appreciation of the aforesaid prosecution evidence has resulted into an erroneous judgment of acquittal of the present respondents. It was further urged that any lapse on account of the investigating officer will not vitiate the trial and that the same cannot be a ground to dilute otherwise cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that there was no legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court. It was further contended that the judgement was passed after thread bare examination of the concerned witnesses. The counsel urged that the learned trial Court has correctly disbelieved the case of the prosecution and therefore acquitted the respondents in the aforesaid chargesheet.
High Court’s Observation
The court observed that as is well settled in such case of an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C, the scope of the appellate Court is to the extent that the judgment of acquittal should not be ordinarily interfered with unless the findings in such judgment are shown to be arrived at by incorrect or perverse appreciation of material on record and the law.
The court referred to this position of law with respect to the scope of appellate court qua an appeal against the acquittal in a catena of judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Such as in the case of Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. This was further reiterated in Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. , 2016 Latest Caselaw 191 SC, in which the court observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity. And more recently, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jafarudheen Vs. State of Kerala, 2022 Latest Caselaw 347 SC made a detailed analysis of the precedents namely, Mohan v. State of Karnataka, Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police, Anwar Ali v. State of H.P, Umedbhai Jadavbhai vs The State Of Gujarat, Sambasivan vs Stae of Kerela among others.
The Court thus ruled:
"Keeping in mind the general principles, the appellant/State had to demonstrate that the impugned judgment suffered from any illegality or perversity. Thus by examining the judgement and materials on record the court came to the conclusion that the finding of learned trial Court to the effect that contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses with respect to the incident itself and the place of incident thereby giving benefit of doubt to the accused is a plausible view . It is also a settled principle that if the view taken by the learned trial Court “is a possible view”, then the order of acquittal should not be reversed."
Therefore, the Court didn't find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
CASE TITLE: STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) vs MANOJ KUMAR @ MEENU & ORS
CASE DETAILS: CRL.A. 149/2017
CORAM: Justice Amit Sharma
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :