State Of Haryana vs Alma Begum And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 15853 P&H

CRM-A-132-2021                           1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH
                                        CRM-A-132-2021
                                        Decided on 06.12.2022.

State of Haryana                                                     ...Petitioner
                                   Versus
Alma Begum and Others                                               .... Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:      Ms. Rajni Gupta, AAG, Haryana
              for the petitioner.

                    *****
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

This judgment shall dispose of an application filed by the State of

Haryana under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., seeking leave to appeal against judgment

dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ( Exclusive Court

for Heinous Crimes against Women) vide which the child in conflict with law was

acquitted.

On 27.04.2018, a 14 years old girl (the victim) went missing from her

house at about 7.00 P.M. The matter was reported to the police by her uncle. He gave

her description to the police and stated that a child in conflict with law Rohit had

enticed the victim away on the pretext of marriage and, therefore, action be taken and

the victim be searched. The victim was found sitting at Chandigarh Railway Station

on 30.04.2018 from where she was recovered. Statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,

was recorded. On 05.05.2018, the child in conflict with law was apprehended.

The allegation against the respondents/accused are that they had hatched

a criminal conspiracy with the child in conflict in law and had kidnapped the victim

from the lawful guardianship of her guardian and the victim was kept in the house of

respondent No.1-Alma. The respondents/accused were also apprehended

subsequently and were tried by the aforesaid Court whereas the child in conflict with

law was tried by the Children's Court.

1 of 5

Aggrieved against the said judgment, the present application for leave to

file appeal has been preferred.

We have heard the learned State counsel and with her assistance, have

gone through the case file.

It has been submitted by the learned State counsel that the trial Court

erred in law in acquitting the respondents/accused. Learned counsel has submitted

that the respondents/accused have been let of without considering the matter in the

right perspective.

Having heard learned counsel for the State and having perused the

the case file, we are of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in

the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court.

Before referring to the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to

discuss the legal position in so far appeals against judgments of acquittal are

concerned.

It is no longer res integra that Courts have to be extremely careful

while hearing appeals against acquittal and the judgments of acquittal should not

be interfered with lightly. In the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and

others, 2016 (2) RCR (Criminal) 319, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that

generally an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different

pedestal from that of an appeal against the conviction. It was held that in an appeal

against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is

re-enforced, the Appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only

when there was perversity of fact and law. A word of "caution" was also added by

the Hon'ble Apex Court that the paramount consideration of the Court was to do

substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice, which could arise by acquitting

the accused, who is guilty of an offence. Though, in this case the Hon'ble Apex

Court reversed a judgment of acquittal but the principles carved out would

2 of 5

definitely be binding and would be applicable as per the facts of each case. As

stated above, in the present case, there is no perversity on facts or law. Still

further, in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Fazal Rehman Abdul, 2014(7)

SCC (Criminal) 01, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid few parameters to be kept in

mind while entertaining appeals against judgments of acquittal. It was held that the

Appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a CRM-

A-353-2021 4 case where two views are possible, though the view of the

Appellate Court may be the more probable one. It was held that while dealing with

a judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court has to consider the entire evidence on

record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the view of the trial Court was

perverse or otherwise unsustainable. It was also held that the Appellate Court

should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that

the trial Court's acquittal bolsters presumption of his innocence. The part of the

Judgment dealing with this issue is reproduced here-in-below:

"9. This Court has laid down parameters for interference against the order of acquittal time and again. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be

3 of 5

perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality."

This view was also taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CRM-A-353-

2021 5 a case State of Rajasthan Vs. Madan alias Madaniya, 2019 Crl.L.R.

(S.C.) 09. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in an appeal against

acquittal, the Appellate Court would only interfere where there exists perversity of

facts and law. While arriving at these conclusions, the Hon'ble Apex Court relied

upon the Judgment in the case of Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh Vs.

Republic of India, 2011(2) SCC 490.

The matter shall now be examined in light of the principles

enumerated in the aforementioned judgments. The prosecution examined 16

witnesses in support of its case and also produced 49 documents in evidence. The

allegation was that the child in conflict with law had enticed/kidnapped the victim

with a promise to marry her and from 27.04.2018 to 30.04.2018, she was enticed

with a view to establish physical relations with her in the house of the respondent-

Alma. The respondents are the mother, maternal aunt and maternal uncle of the

child in conflict with law. It was alleged that the victim had been first taken to the

house of the maternal aunt of the child in conflict with law where he committed

penetrative sexual assault upon the victim where after she was taken to

Chandigarh with the help of co-accused-Sandeep and Salma, where she was kept

in a hospital for being sent to Kolkata by train but before she could be sent, she

was recovered. The victim, while deposing as PW-10, stated that she wanted to go

to Chandigarh and, therefore, on 27.04.2018, she left without informing anyone

and at Chandigarh the police apprehended her. She did not state anything against

the child in conflict with law or the present respondents either with regard to

enticing or the act having been committed with her. She refused medical

examination also. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated

that she had gone with the child in conflict with law on his asking but in the same 4 of 5

breath stated that she already knew him and he was her friend. She stated that it

was she who had suggested that they should run away. She then deposed as to

where all they had gone and even the co-accused had permitted them to stay in her

house on their asking only. She did not, therefore, level any allegation of enticing,

kidnapping or any wrongful act having been committed with her. It was in fact her

second statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which she had leveled certain

allegations. The trial Court found that the victim had made many improvements in

her statements while appearing in the Court, and, therefore, did not find her

statement to be truthful. She leveled certain allegations in the examination-in-chief

but denied the same in the cross-examination. She refused to get her medical

examination done. The CCTV footage was also not relied upon as it had not been

proved in accordance with law. Even the age of the victim was not proved by the

prosecution. The trial Court rightly held that the prosecution had not been able to

prove its case against the accused and, therefore, rightly acquitted the

respondents/accused.

We find that it is not even a case where two views are possible and

even if a second view was possible, the one favouring the accused would have to

be taken in view of the authoritative pronouncements of law discussed in the

preceding paragraphs.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we do not find

any merit in the present application and, therefore, decline to grant leave to file

appeal and accordingly reject the application.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)                               ( VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
        JUDGE                                                JUDGE

06.12.2022
rekha sharma
                     Whether speaking/reasoned :       Yes/No.
                     Whether reportable        :      Yes/No.
                                       5 of 5