CRM-A-546-MA of 2014 1 243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-A-546-MA of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision:- December 01, 2014 [ENTITY] Appellant Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the appellant. [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
This appeal is against the order of learned trial Court whereby the accused was acquitted of offences under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT].
Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the trial Court was in error in holding that the complainant was not able to show ownership proof of the stolen articles as it is difficult to prove the ownership of household articles which was in the possession of the complainant for a long time. Learned counsel further argued that the trial Court has erred in recording that the complainant was residing on first floor and hence, the accused could not have entered by breaking the main gate of the house.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and in my view there is no merit in the instant appeal. Learned trial Court has rightly recorded that the complainant has not been able to substantiate his allegations regarding the possession over the stolen property of 10 tolas of gold. He has not given any description about the shape of rings, necklace, bangles, etc. nor any independent proof of ownership has been led by the [ENTITY]. No independent witness of the locality has been examined for this purpose. The complainant was not in possession of the entire house and he was residing on the first floor, therefore, there was no question that the accused No.1 who resides at ground floor and is owner of the house would enter the house by breaking the main gate.
When the complainant has not been able to establish that theft took place there would be no question of holding the accused guilty of the theft. Needless to state that the burden of proof was on the complainant to establish the offence, but he failed to discharge the same.
It is also worthwhile to mention that the alleged incident was an off shoot of a civil dispute between landlord and tenant. The complainant had filed a suit for permanent injunction against accused No.1 and 2 restraining them from dispossessing/interference in the peaceful possession over the property.
It is settled law that in an appeal against acquittal the appellate Court can re-appreciate the evidence which is the basis of order of acquittal. However, the Courts are not to interfere in the order of acquittal merely on the ground that it is possible to take another view on the evidence led before the Courts as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further re- inforced by the judgment of acquittal. Reference can be made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [PRECEDENT] wherein it has been held as under:
"7. In a recent decision in [PRECEDENT] this Court had the occasion to consider the broad principles of law governing the power of the High Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The summary of the relevant principles of law set out in para 21 of the judgment may be extracted hereinunder:
"21. A concise statement of the law on the issue that had emerged after over half a century of evolution since [ENTITY] is to be found in para 42 of the Report in [PRECEDENT]. The same may, therefore, be usefully noticed below: '42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The [ACT] puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.'"
In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order acquitting the accused. The application for leave to appeal stands dismissed.
December 01, 2014 ([ENTITY]) [ENTITY]