Joy Varghese vs Santosh Shrivastava
2022 Latest Caselaw 7851 MP

                      -( 1 )-            Cr.R. No.1810 of 2020


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  AT GWALIOR BEFORE
        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV
            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1810 of 2020
Between:-
JOY VARGHESE S/O SHRI C. VARGHESE,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
PRINCIPAL, ALPHA ENGLISH SCHOOL,
OCCUPATION       SERVICE,       R/O.   DALVI
COLONY, DISTRICT GUNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)

                                               .... PETITIONER

(BY SHRI RAJIV JAIN- ADVOCATE)

VS

1. SANTOSH SHRIVASTAV S/O SHRI S.D.
SHRIVASTAV, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/O. HANUMAAN COLONY, DISTRICT
GUNA (MADHYA PRADESH)


2. STATE OF M.P THROUGH POLICE
STATION KOTWALI, DISTRICT GUNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                          .... RESPONDENTS
                             -( 2 )-             Cr.R. No.1810 of 2020


     (NONE PRESENT FOR RESONDENT NO. 1)
     (RESPONDENT NO. 2/STATE BY SHRI NIRMAL SHARMA,
     PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

                              JUDGMENT

(Passed on 15/06/2022)

1) This revision has been filed challenging the judgment

dated 11/02/2020 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge,

Dist. Guna in Criminal Appeal No. 248/2017, whereby, the

learned lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed

by the petitioner and affirmed the judgment dated 07/09/2017

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, District

Guna in criminal case No. 2555/2014, whereby, the learned

JMFC has acquitted the accused/respondent No. 1 from the

offence punishable under Sections 294, 451, 323 & 506 Part-2

of IPC.

2) As per prosecution story, short facts of the case giving rise to filing of this criminal revision are that on 23/08/2014 at about 12.30 Pm, the examination of 3rd Semester of Class 10th was going on in Alpha English High School, Dalvi Colony, District Guna, at that time, the respondent No. 1/Santosh Shrivastav, without seeking permission of the complainant/Joy Vergeese entered into the school premises and under

-( 3 )- Cr.R. No.1810 of 2020

the passion of heat started using unparliamentary language against the complainant, his wife and staff of the school, which was opposed by the complainant and told him not to use unparliamentary language, on which, the respondent No. 1 scuffled with the complainant and assaulted him by means of key of the motorcycle, due to which, he sustained injury on his left hand finger. Thereafter, the complainant screamed loudly, on which, the staff members of the school came to rescue the complainant. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1/Santosh Shrivastav went away from the spot of incident and threatened the complainant that today he is saved, but in future, if he meet him again then he would kill him.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that to prove the offence sufficient evidence was on record. It is submitted that the findings of the learned Court below in presence of the evidence available of record is perverse and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the revision filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the respondent No.1/Santosh Shrivastav be convicted.

4) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there was no evidence to prove the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondent. It is submitted that after due appreciation of evidence the learned Court below found that prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondent. It is submitted that in the facts and

-( 4 )- Cr.R. No.1810 of 2020

circumstances of the case, no case is made out for interference hence petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

5) In the matter of Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh & Ors. reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 1435 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that there is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. 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 favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that in a case where the admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re- appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. It is further held that the principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference.

-( 5 )- Cr.R. No.1810 of 2020

6) Having considered all the aspects of the matter and after re- appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution, this Court is satisfied that this is not a case in which this Court may be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court. The reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting the respondent No.1/Santosh Shrivastav appears to be reasonable and are based on evidence. It is well settled that even if on the basis of the same evidence, if other view is possible, the appellate Court will not be justified in reversing the order of acquittal if the same is based on evidence on record and the view taken is a possible reasonable view.

7) In view of this, this Court finds no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

CC as per rules.

                                                                  (SUNITA YADAV)
                                                                      JUDGE

Durgekar*
            Digitally signed by SANJAY NAMDEORAO

SANJAY      DURGEKAR
            DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
            PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH


NAMDEOR
            COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
            GWALIOR, postalCode=474001,
            st=Madhya Pradesh,

2.5.4.20=afa4701a2661e1fb7720c022ffc27

AO 7608ce55ba67f3594a641181b9ae8448e58, pseudonym=DA26B82C5BC4CAF69072CA 5A13CA996C4169AB06, serialNumber=1190D1488DBA862FB108E

DURGEKAR D66262DC2DC2CB9D310D73128B3A6E7B 046FCF28227, cn=SANJAY NAMDEORAO DURGEKAR Date: 2022.06.16 18:00:53 -07'00'