Delhi High Court
Bom Bahadur Thapa vs United Commercial Bank on 8 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 VIIIAD Delhi 574, 96 (2002) DLT 801, (2002) IIILLJ 1011 Del
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Rule.
2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties,
the petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The only question which arises for consideration
in the present petition is whether the judgment of the
trial court dated 22nd February, 2000 should be
construed as a case of clean acquittal or a acquittal as
a consequence of benefit of doubt. The relevant para
11 is as under:
"11. In the light of best possible
evidence not brought on record. In the
light of and ; the benefit of doubt tilts in
favor of the accused. Accordingly the
accused is held not guilty and acquitted
of the charged offence under Section 381 IPC."
4. Thus though the expression used is that "the
benefit of doubt tilts in favor of the accused" the
final order is that accused is not held guilty and
acquitted of the charges under Section 381 IPC.
5. A perusal of the order would show the nature of
evidence adduced by the prosecution. The same is as
under:
"9. PW-1 Gulab Rai Asstt. Manager,
UCO Bank was examined but deferred. He
was not produced for cross-examination.
In consequence thereby his deposition
cannot be looked into and relied upon.
PW-2 is Suresh Kumar Mittal, Asstt.
Manager, UCO Bank did not utter anything
increminating against the accused
regarding the theft or recovery of article
vide seizure memo mark A. Thus, his
deposition is also of hardly any relevance
to establish the prosecution case.
10. PW-3 was examined by the
Prosecution. His examination was deferred
since case property was not produced by
Mal Khana; he was thereafter not
examined. Thus, his deposition also
cannot be looked into or relied upon."
6. A reading of the aforesaid paras makes it clear
that one of the witnesses states nothing against the
petitioner and the other two witnesses did not turn up
for cross examination and thus the deposition cannot be
relied upon. A bare reading of the judgment makes it
clear that it is a case of clean acquittal and not of a
benefit of doubt. The question of acquittal on benefit
of doubt would only arise if there are two views
possible on the basis of the evidence available and
after analysis of the evidence the Court gives the
benefit of doubt in view of the two views possible.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, . Relevant paragraphs 162 and 163 are reproduced
as under:
"162. We then pass on to another
important point which seems to have been
completely missed by the High Court. It
is well settled that where on the evidence
two possibilities are available or open,
one which goes in favor of the
prosecution and the other which benefits
an accused, the accused is undoubtedly
entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali
Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, , this Court made the following
observations:
"Another golden thread which runs
through the web of the administration of
justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced
in the case, one pointing to the guilt of
the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favorable to
the accused should be adopted. The
principle has a special relevance in cases
wherein the guilt of the accused is sought
to be established by circumstantial
evidence."
163. We now come to the mode and
manner of proof of cases of murder by
administration of poison. In Ramgopal's
case (supra) this Court
held thus (at p. 659):
"Three questions arise in such
cases, namely (firstly), did the decease
die of the poison in question?
(secondly), had the accused the poison in
question in his possession? and
(thirdly), had the accused an opportunity
administer the poison in question to the
decease? It is only when the motive is
there and these fats are all proved that
the Court may be able to draw the
inference, that the poison was
administered by the accused to the
deceased resulting in his death."
8. In view of this judgment where the expression
benefit of doubt has been analysed, the case of the
petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of the said
judgment.
9. The consequence of the aforesaid is that the
petitioner should be treated as having got a clean
acquittal from the criminal court and all consequences
of the same insofar as terms of services are concerned
shall follow.
10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
