IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision No. 876/2003. [ENTITY] son of Shibbu, by-caste Jat R/o Hukmikheda Tehsil Hindon District Karauli. Versus 1. The [ENTITY] through Government Advocate. 2. [ENTITY] son of Champoli, by-caste Jatav R/o Band Ka Nagla Police Station Suroth District Karauli. For Petitioner(s) : Shri [ENTITY] For State : Shri [ENTITY], P.P. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Judgment / Order 16/1/2018 Petitioner had faced trial in FIR No. 253/97 registered at Police Station Suroth, District Karauli qua offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT]. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 16.8.2002 ordered the conviction and sentence of the respondent
No.2 under [SECTION] [ACT]. Appellate Court vide order dated 30.6.2003 acquitted the respondent No.2 of the charge framed against him. Hence, the present petition by the complainant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate court had erred in ordering acquittal of respondent No. 2. Prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Respondent No.2 being the Sarpanch had failed to spend the amount of Rupees One Lac for the purpose it had been released to him.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Rupees One Lac was released to respondent No.2, who was the Sarpanch at the relevant time for construction of a pond to take care of the rainy water. However, respondent No.2 had failed to construct the bond. Learned Appellate Court, while ordering acquittal of respondent No.2, has noticed that the trial court, while ordering the conviction of respondent No.2, had failed to consider the documents attached with the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency. While submitting the negative final report, Investigating Agency had attached various Muster Rolls to the effect that the work of construction of pond had been duly carried out. It has been noticed by the Appellate Court that, in-fact, the work had been done and had been later demolished by the complainant party. Complainant had also admitted in his cross-examination that there was dispute between two parties with regard to construction of the pond. Complainant had found the work carried out by the [ENTITY] as satisfactory. Reasons given by the Appellate Court, while ordering acquittal of respondent No.2 are sound reasons and the view taken by the Appellate Court is a probable one.
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 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"
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J. Mrg./3