The Gujarat High Court, in one significient ruling has held that Trial Court judgement on acquittal can't be interferred with and substituted with a different view unless the same is perverse, contrary to the material on record.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice SH Vora and Justice Sandeep N Bhatt while dismissing an appeal challenging Acquittal Order from charge of Murder of Sessions Court has observed that unless reasoning by the trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset.
Brief Facts of the Case
The Complainant-Appellant had filed a complaint with the Police claiming that during a dispute involving issues connected with a temple, the accused persons delivered a fatal blow on the cousin of the Appellant and also beat the Appellant. Pursuant to this incident, an FIR and chargesheet were filed under Section 302, Section 323, Section 504 of the IPC and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
The Sessions Court came to acquit the accused after examining the witnesses and the documentary evidence adduced by the Prosecution and noting that the accused persons denied any involvement in the incident.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgement and the order of acquittal, the Complainant filed an appeal under Section 372 of CrPC. in the High Court.
High Court Observation
The Court at the outset noted that after carefully examining the deposition of witness, there was no doubt that he has deposed before the Court that private opponents were armed with wooden stick and while deposing so, he has not attributed any role to the private opponents.
As per deceased's wife's version, other co-accused had quarrel with the deceased and complainant and she has not uttered a word with regard to the presence of private opponents at the scene of offence and no role is attributed to them and though the prosecution witnesses were present at the scene of offence at the time of occurrence of incident, but wife of deceased didn't attribute any role to the private opponents. In view of such inconsistency in the version of both the eye witnesses, learned Trial Judge thought it fit to give benefit of doubt to the private opponents., the Court stated.
Noting that after re-assessment and reappreciation of entire evidence, it didn't find any infirmity or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by the learned Trial Judge, the Court added:
"Further the deceased while giving medical history to the Doctor did not utter a word of the private opponents though they are residing nearby and also relative. In view of such major discrepancy in the evidence of eye witnesses, learned Trial Judge after appreciating evidence found it appropriate to extend benefit of doubt to the private opponents."
Under the circumstances, the Court opined that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the private opponents for the elaborate reasons stated in the impugned judgment and we also endorse the view/finding of the learned trial Judge leading to the acquittal.
"It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable."
The Court cited Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. The State of Gujarat, 1996 Latest Caselaw 413 SC, Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 2022 Latest Caselaw 64 SC, Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 Latest Caselaw 81 SC, Bhaiyamiyan @ Jardar Khan & ANR. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 Latest Caselaw 385 SC, wherein the Apex Court 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 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. In regard to this, it noted that in the instant case, the learned APP has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
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 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court concluded no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
