Chaturbhai Karshanbhai Mahida vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 9353 Guj

    R/CR.A/753/2015                                CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 753 of 2015


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:                                              Sd/-


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN                                Sd/-
==========================================================

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO to see the judgment ?

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                             NO

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy                   NO
       of the judgment ?

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question                   NO

of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?

========================================================== CHATURBHAI KARSHANBHAI MAHIDA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s) ========================================================== Appearance:

HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS. ALKA B VANIYA(6945) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR.MRUDUL M BAROT(3750) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6 MS CM SHAH APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA M. SAREEN

Date : 21/10/2022

CAV JUDGMENT

1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant - State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 31/12/2013 passed by the learned 3 rd

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

Additional Sessions Judge, Anand in Special (Atrocity) Case No.1 of 2013 acquitting the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 - original accused No.1 to 5 from the offence punishable under sections 147, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act.

2. The brief fact of the prosecution case is that complainant namely Chaturbhai Karshanbhai Mahida, resident of Bhetasi, Taluka-Ankalav, District Anand lodged the complaint on 24.8.2007 that the complainant went to Dindayal Grahak Bhandar for oil which he did not get and hence he went before Mamlatdar office and met Deputy Mamlatdar and inquired why oil on 15/9/2006 is not given to him. Therefore Deputy Mamlatdar and his clerk on dated 15.9.2006 in the morning came to their village Bhetasi and search for record of Grahak Bhandar and at that time Kanjibhai Shalambhai Parmar was present and complainant and Haribhai Raisingbhai and others persons were also present and at that time the Mamlatdar called the card holders of the Grahak Bhandar and at 2 O'clock Kanjibhai, his brother Keshrisinh Roopsinh Parmar, Dilipsinh Keshribhai Parmar and Mansukhbhai Mohanbhai Mali and Bhikhabhai Shomabhai Harijan all were present there and at that they threatened and abused them and also told that you have filed wrong complaint and given threats to complainant to kill him and also told that when the search is finished they will see at complainant and there after if

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

they are punished for imprisonment, will go to jail but will not leave him. All seven persons gave them this types of threats. At that time Haribhai Raisingbhai accompanying complainant and got high blood pressure and he was admitted in the hospital hospital. Hence, the the complainant filed the complaint with Ankalav Police Station bearing CR No.I-108/07 of the offence punishable under section 147, 504, 506(2) and section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was started, statement of witnesses were recorded, prepared the panchnama of the scene of offence, arrested the accused and after through investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the respondent - accused, Chargesheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence committed by the accused person was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been numbered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.1 of 2013. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 147, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the Charges

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, led evidence, oral as well as documentary. After the evidence was over, Further Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and arguments were heard. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against them. Hence, the appellant

- original complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgement and order of acquittal.

4. Heard Ms.Alka Vaniya, learned advocate for the appellant complainant, Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the respondent No.1 - State and Mr.Mrudul Barot, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2 to 6 - original accused.

5. Ms.Alka Vaniya, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned judge has failed to appreciate the evidence which has been brought on record by the prosecution in its true spirit. The learned Judge without properly appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, which thoroughly supported the case of the prosecution, has wrongly acquitted the accused. It is submitted that the Sessions Court has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. She has further submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against them. She has further

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

argued that the prosecution has proved that the respondents have committed offence under sections 147, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1) (10) of Atrocity Act. She has further argued that Sessions Court has acquitted the accused merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. She has further argued that the trial court has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. She has further argued that the offence punishable under sections 147, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(10) of Atrocity Act, is made out against the accused, however, the same is not believed by the Sessions Court. She has further argued that though the prosecution witness has supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court not believed their evidence and acquitted the accused erroneously. She has requested to allow the present appeal.

6. Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the respondent No.1 State has reiterated the arguments of appellant and Mr.Mrudul Barot, learned advocate for the accused have submitted that there is hardly any substance in the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant. There is no evidence on record connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

The trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and rightly acquitted the accused. They have requested to dismiss the present appeal.

7. Heard advocates for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and re- appreciated the entire evidence on record.

8. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to the scope in Acquittal Appeals. It is well settled by is catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full Power to review, re-appreciate and consider the Evidence upon which the Order of Acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of Acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the Accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the Fundamental Principle of Criminal Jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of Law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his Acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

9. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it appears that as per the case of the prosecution, the

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

complainant is belonging to Scheduled Caste and is a Rickshaw driver by profession. As per the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred on 15/9/2006 at 10 AM. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. Ambalal Ganeshbhai Rohit PW No.1 Ex.11 is panch witness. PW No.2 Chaturbhai Mahida is the complainant, PW No.3 Haribhai Raysingbhai is person who had accompanied the complainant at the time of incident, who is alleged to be termed to be eye witness. PW No.4 Dineshkumar Joshi, is the Deputy Mamlatdar, who had gone for checking the ration shop and PW No.5 Bhaylal Bhikhabhai Chauhan accompanied the Dy. Mamlatdar, are the main witnesses, whereas PW No.6 is ASI Dahyabhai Khimabhai Vankar who recorded the complaint. PW No.8 P.I. Harshvardhan Rathod, is the officer who has taken the complaint, PW No.9 Dharmendrasinh Ratansinh Raol is the I.O., whereas PW No.7 Harshadbhai Sharma is the Doctor who has examined Haribhai Raysingbhai, who at the time of incident had fallen down sick. The prosecution has produced as many as 27 documentary evidences.

10. As per the case of the prosecution, PW No.2 is the main witness - complainant of the case, who has filed the complaint Ex.17. As per his say, the incident has occurred on 15/09/2006 at 2 PM. All the accused had come to the place of incident, they had abused the complainant and threatened the complainant. Haribhai was also there with

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

the complainant and as his blood pressure had shooted up, he was immediately taken to PHC, Bhetasi. These are the short facts of the complaint narrated by the complainant.

11. Surprisingly, it has come on record as per the say of the complainant that the incident occurred on 15/9/2006 but the information to the police has been given on 24/8/2007 i.e. after a span of 11 months.

12. Panchnama of the scene of offence has been carried out way back on 24/8/2007. Panch witness has supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the place of incident which is just in front of Pandit Din Dayal Sahakari Mandali.

13. The complainant Chaturbhai Karshanbhai in his deposition Ex.16 has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and he has produced documentary evidence from Ex.17 to Ex.37. He has admitted in the cross examination that the incident, as alleged, has happened in presence of Dy. Mamlatdar Mr.Joshi as Mr.Joshi had come for inspection and inquiry of the ration shop and witness Haribhai was with him, who was independent person. It is also admitted by the complainant in his cross examination that his brother Manoj, his wife Minaxi and Ramesh Ramji have filed 15 different complaints under Atrocity Act. It is also admitted that in the resolution passed by the Village

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

Committee, his brother, he himself, and Ramesh were declared to be a dangerous person for on and often filing complaints and taking undue advantage of law of Atrocity Act.

14. The independent witness, as per say of the complainant, who has nothing to do with the complainant Haribhai Raysingbhai Parmar Ex.38 has been turned hostile. He has not supported the case of the complainant. It is stated in his evidence that as stock of oil was not obtained by the complainant, he had represented this fact before the Dy.Mamlatdar and demanded an inquiry for stock of oil. It is not known to him whether the Dy.Mamlatdar had come to inspection or not. He is also not aware about the fact that the incident has occurred, as he was sick, he was in his house, as per his say. As per the case of the complainant, entire incident has occurred in presence of the Dy. Mamlatdar, Mr.Joshi who was in the village inspecting and inquiring about Pandit Din Dayal Sahakari Mandali - ration shop.

15. The Dy. Mamlatdar Mr.Dinesh Joshi Ex.39, has stated that on 15/9/2006 the complainant had filed an application for inquiry regarding non-availability of Pamoline oil before the Mamlatdar, and had asked him to inquire into the matter. On 16/9/2006 he had gone to the village Bhetasi and visited the ration shop and all ration card holders were

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

also called for verification and he recorded statements of some ration card holders and he came to know that stock of oil was not obtained by some of the ration card holders. He was inside the shop and doing his job and at that time, some quarrel had taken place, which was informed by some persons to him and he came to know that Haribhai Raysingbhai had some quarrel and his blood pressure was shooted up and he was admitted in PHC. After that as he was called by Haribhai, he visited PHC where Haribhai told him that his mother has slapped him and he had some altercation with Kesrisinh and as his blood pressure was shooted up, he has come for treatment in PHC. As per the say of the Dy. Mamlatdar, he has not seen the incident.

16. Witness Bhaylalbhai Bhikhabhai Ex.41, who was with Dy. Mamlatdar for helping him, has also stated the same facts, which has been stated by the Dy. Mamlatdar and stated that the incident had occurred on 16/09/2006. He has further stated that there was some altercation between the Haribhai and Kesrisinh and his blood pressure was shooted up and Haribhai was admitted in the hospital. Except this, there was no quarrel with any of the person and no other incident had occurred during that day.

17. ASI Dayabhai Bhikhabhai Ex.42 has stated that on 24/8/2007 when he was working as PSO in the Police Station, complaint was filed and it was sent for investigation

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

to the Dy.S.P. It is admitted in the cross examination that whatever dates have been written in the complaint were narrated by the complainant himself and after reading the complaint, the complaint was signed by the complainant.

18. Dy.S.P. Dharmendrasinh Ex.49 is I.O. He has carried out the panchnama of scene of offence, he has stated regarding work done by him during the investigation.

In the cross-examination it is admitted that he has studied the entire complaint and all the papers before the investigation and recorded statements of Haribhai and the complainant on 25/8/2007. it is also admitted that as per the say of the complainant and Haribhai, the incident occurred on 15/9/2006 at 10 AM and it had occurred in presence of Dy. Mamlatdar Mr.Joshi and Bhaylalbhai Bhikhabhai. As admitted by I.O. both have come for inspection on 16/09/2006 and on 15/9/2006 no incident has occurred and they had not visited the ration shop 15/09/2006.

19. Considering the entire evidence on record, in the complaint or in the evidence of the complainant, nowhere it has been mentioned that the accused persons had used the abusive language against the complainant. As per the case of the complainant, the incident occurred on 15/9/2006 whereas from the evidence of the I.O. from the evidence of Dy.Mamlatdar Mr.Joshi and Bhailalbhai nothing has come

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

on record that there was any incident occurred on 15/9/2006. On the contrary, witness Dy.Mamlatdar Mr.Joshi and Bhaylalbhai visited the shop on 16/9/2006 and as per the complainant when the Mamlatdar visited the ration shop, the incident had occurred, and as per the complaint the incident had occurred on 15/09/2006. This aspect is contrary to the fact narrated by the Dy. Mamlatdar and witness Bhaylalbhai. Even if the fact that Haribhai Raising had fallen sick and his blood pressure was shooted up, it was not on 15/09/2006 as stated by the complainant, but as per the Dr.Sharma, Haribhai Raisingbhai, was treated on 16/09/2006.

20. As such, there is major contradictions in the complaint, evidence of the complainant and in the evidence of the witnesses regarding the date of incident. I.O. has also stated the fact that no incident has occurred on 15/09/2006 because on that day the Dy.Mamlatdar and his associate Bhaylal have not visited the ration shop and this major contradictions regarding date of has never been clarified by the prosecution and it falsifies the story of the complainant that the incident occurred on 15/09/2006.

21. From the evidence of Dy.Mamlatdar Mr.Joshi and Bhaylalbhai who as per the complainant were present when there was quarrel with the accused who had threatened the complainant and who had spoken filthy and abusive words

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

against the complainant. These main two witnesses have not supported the say of the complainant regarding such incident. It is the evidence of witness Dy.Mamlatdar Joshi and Bhaylalbhai that they were inspecting the illegality and irregularity in the shop and some altercation had taken place but both these witnesses have not narrated any incident with respect to the complaint of the complainant. Witness Mr.Joshi has only stated regarding altercation of Haribhai Raisingbhai with Kesrisinh. As such, the affected person, if believed for the sake of argument, is Haribhai Raisingbhai and not the complainant.

22. On the other-hand, Haribhai Raisingbhai has turned hostile and he has also not narrated any incident which can support the case of the complainant. On the contrary, he has stated that his mother had slapped him. The case of the complainant does not get support of any of the witnesses. The words of the complainant in the complaint as well as the finding are only bare words like an arrow shot in the air.

23. As stated above, the entire incident of the complaint and as stated by the complainant and witness Haribhai has taken the place on 15/09/2006 in presence of Dy. Mamlatdar Mr.Joshi, whereas in the evidence of Dy.Mamlatdar Joshi, Bhaylalbhai, they have never visited the ration shop on 15/9/2006. This contradiction is fatal to

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

the case of the prosecution which falsifies the story of the complainant.

24. One more glaring aspect is that the complaint has been filed on 24/8/2007 i.e. after a span of 11 months. For the sake of arguments if it is believed that application was made under R.T.I. for getting documents, then also complaint could have been filed after one or two months from the date of incident. But in the present case, there is inordinate delay of 11 months which has remained unexplained and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution along with the contradiction of the date of the incident.

25. It is also admitted by the complainant on record that he, his wife Minaxi and Ramesh Ramji have filed 15 different complaints under Atrocity Act and in the resolution passed by the Village Committee, the complainant, his brother and Ramesh were declared to be dangerous persons for on and often filing complaints and taking undue advantage of law of Atrocity Act. This aspect that the complainant is habitual of filing complaints under Atrocity Act, cannot be discarded. The learned trial judge has also given a finding that the trial court has also imposed penalty of Rs.100/- for filing false complaint, to be paid by the complainant to each of the accused. This order of imposing penalty has not been challenged by the

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

complainant. The finding of the trial court regarding false complaint cannot be ruled out in respect of admission made by the complainant in cross examination regarding filing of 15 complaints under Atrocity Act by him and his family members. Considering this aspect also, the entire case of the prosecution is doubtful. The evidence of the complainant is not supported by any of the witnesses and the evidence of the complainant is not trustworthy and plausible.

26. Considering the entire evidence on record oral as well as documentary this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The judgement delivered by the Sessions Judge is sound on the aspect of law and facts. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution before the trial court has been rightly appreciated by the trial court. No apparent error on the face of the record is found from the judgement. The judgement does not suffer any material defect or cannot be said to be contrary to the evidence recorded.

27. It may be noted that as per the settled legal position, when two views are possible, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court should not be interfered with by the Appellate Court unless for the special reasons. A beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

the case of State of Rajasthan versus Ram Niwas reported in (2010) 15 SCC 463 be made in this regard. In the said case, it has been observed as under:-

"6. This Court has held in Kalyan v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 632 :

"8. The settled position of law on the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is passed, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused persons, as envisaged under the criminal jurisprudence prevalent in our country is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court.

Normally the views of the trial court, as to the credibility of the witnesses, must be given proper weight and consideration because the trial court is supposed to have watched the demeanour and conduct of the witness and is in a better position to appreciate their testimony. The High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court. In Kali Ram V. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, this Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case 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

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court further observed:

"27. It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilised society. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of the offence of murder and is hanged, nothing further can undo the mischief for the wrong resulting from the unmerited conviction is irretrievable. To take another instance, if an innocent person is sent to jail and undergoes the sentence, the scars left by the miscarriage of justice cannot be erased by any subsequent act of expiration. Not many persons undergoing the pangs of wrongful conviction are fortunate like Dreyfus to have an Emile Zola to champion their cause and succeed in getting the verdict of guilt annulled. All this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice Such a risk can be minimised but not ruled out altogether It may in this connection be apposite to refer to the following observations of Sir Carleton Alien quoted on page 157 of "The Proof of Guilt" by Glanville Williams, second edition:

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

"I dare say some sentimentalists would assent to the proposition that it is better that a thousand, or even a million, guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer; but no responsible and practical person would accept such a view. For it is obvious that if our ratio is extended indefinitely, there comes a point when the whole system of justice has broken down and society is in a state of chaos."

28. The fact that there has to be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused and that in the absence of that it is not possible to record a finding of his guilt was stressed by this Court in the case of Shivaji Sahebrao, (1973) 2 SCC 793, as is clear from the following observations:

"Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely, may be guilty before a court, can be convicted and the mental distinction between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure considerations."

"9. The High Court while dealing with the appeals against the order of acquittal must keep in mind the following propositions laid down by this Court, namely, (i) the slowness of the appellate court to disturb a finding of fact; (ii) the noninterference with the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case of taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court."

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

8. In Arulvelu and another versus State reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 206, the Supreme Court after discussing the earlier judgments, observed in para No. 36 as under:

"36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment can not be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshaling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law."

28. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.

29. Scope of appeal against acquittal is well laid down in case of Chandrappa and ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was observed:

"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;

(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law;

(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal.

Such phraseologies are more in the nature of

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

'flourishes of language' to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

30. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

R/CR.A/753/2015 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2022

31. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Criminal Appeal deserve to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

(RAJENDRA M. SAREEN,J) R.H. PARMAR...