HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision No. 684 / 2017 [ENTITY] S/o Juggaram B/c Naai, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Bharatpur, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur, Raj. Petitioner Versus 1. [ENTITY] Through P.P. 2. [ENTITY] S/o Murari Lal B/c Naai, R/o Village Gahlau, Police Station Uchhain, District Bharatpur, Raj. Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. [ENTITY] Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. [ENTITY], P.p. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Judgment 08/12/2017 Petitioner has filed this petition under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] [ACT] challenging the order dated 22.03.2017 whereby appeal filed by respondent No.2 was allowed and he was ordered to be acquitted by the Appellate Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
As per the prosecution story, accused had given beatings to the wife of the complainant and had also taken away cash and Jewellery articles. Trial Court ordered the conviction and sentence of respondent No.2 under [SECTION] of [ACT] and ordered his acquittal under [SECTION] of [ACT]. Hence, both the parties preferred appeals.
Appellate Court vide order dated 22.03.2017 allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.2 and dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner. Appellate Court while ordering the acquittal of respondent no.2 has held that the name of the respondent No.2 was not depicted in the FIR. Respondent No.2 was already known to the wife of the petitioner. In case, respondent No.2 had committed the offence, his name would have figured in the FIR. Since, the name of respondent No.2 was not depicted in the FIR, no reliance could be placed on the statement of the wife of the petitioner made during trial as the wife of the petitioner had made material improvement in her statement while appearing in the witness box during trial. Reasons given by the Appellate Court, while ordering the acquittal of the respondent No.2, are sound reasons.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.
Similarly, in [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into various judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
"8) It is clear that in an appeal against acquittal in the absence of perversity in the judgment and (3 of 3) [CASE NUMBER] order, interference by this Court exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. In other words, law does not prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and the appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal provides for presumption in favour of the accused.
The presumption of innocence is available to the person and in criminal jurisprudence every person is presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the competent court. If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion. The appellate court can also review the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court with respect to both facts and law. While dealing with the appeal against acquittal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and only by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed"
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.
Dismissed.
([ENTITY])J. [ENTITY]/d-45