CrL.Misc. No.294-MA of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CrL.Misc. No.A-294-MA of 2011 Date of Decision: 15.07.2011 [ENTITY] Appellant Vs. [ENTITY] & Ors. Respondents CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice [ENTITY], J.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice [ENTITY], J.
Present: Mr.[ENTITY], Advocate, for the appellant.
[ENTITY], J.
The appellant-complainant [ENTITY] has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 25.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby she has acquitted all the accused/respondents of the charges under [SECTION] [ACT].
First Information Report was recorded on the statement made by [ENTITY], complainant whereby he disclosed that on 15.3.2006 at about 10 PM, [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] armed with [ENTITY], [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY] armed with [ENTITY], [ENTITY] armed [ENTITY], [ENTITY] armed with [ENTITY] came there. [ENTITY] had exhorted to teach the complainant a lesson for taking possession of the land. Thereafter he as well as [ENTITY] gave him [ENTITY] blows on the left arm. [ENTITY] inflicted stick blows on the back of his left hand. [ENTITY] inflicted dang blows on the elbow of left arm of his brother [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] inflicted stick blows on the left side of head and shoulder of [ENTITY] (daughter-in-law). His brother, [ENTITY] inflicted [ENTITY] blow on the middle finger of left hand of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] inflicted stick blows on the left shoulder and left wrist of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] inflicted kick blows in her abdomen. [ENTITY] inflicted stick blows on the left ear and right shoulder of [ENTITY] wife of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] inflicted gandasi blow on the fingers of right hand of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] inflicted gandasi blows from reverse side on the head and left leg of [ENTITY].
The case was investigated and ultimately the respondents were challaned under sections [SECTION] [ACT], On commitment the accused were charged to stand trial under [SECTION] [ACT], to which they leaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges examined [ENTITY] injured (PW 1), [ENTITY] injured (PW 2), [ENTITY] injured (PW 3), [ENTITY] (PW 4), [ENTITY] injured (PW 5), [ENTITY] injured/complainant (PW6), ASI [ENTITY] (PW
7), [ENTITY] (PW 8) and Dr.[ENTITY] (PW 9).
When examined under [SECTION] of the [ACT], the respondents denied all the allegations and pleaded their false implication.
Accused [ENTITY] explained that he along with his brother had purchased 119 kanals 9 marlas of land from [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] in the year 1990. They got the possession of 72 kanals of land which was share of [ENTITY] but the remaining 5 acres of land was in possession of [ENTITY] etc., of which possession was not given. The respondents filed an application for partition of the said land which was decided by Tehsildar on 23.12.1997. [ENTITY] lost the case up to the level of Commissioner. Ultimately, possession of the disputed land was delivered to the respondents as per partition. As such the complainant party nourished a grudge against them and implicated them in this false case.
In defence the accused/respondents examined DW 1 Mrs. [ENTITY], Advocate.
Learned trial court reached the conclusion that the complainant party has suppressed the true facts. Actually on 15.3.2006, the complainant party had come to their house and caused injuries to them and in that process the neighbourers had caused injuries to the complainant party. The complainant has not explained the injuries caused on the persons of the respondents, therefore, while giving benefit of doubt the respondents were acquitted.
On examination of the rival contentions and the evidence as led by the prosecution, it transpires that the prosecution has suppressed the true facts. The accused/respondents also suffered injuries which the complainant has failed to explain. Origin of the occurrence has not been proved. In the absence of the explanation with regard to the injures on the person of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], inference could be drawn viz. the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged by the complainant; the complainant party has concealed the genesis of occurrence, or the version as set up by the prosecution is not correct.
Enmity between the parties stands duly established as the complainant and his witnesses have admitted that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the land and possession of 72 kanals of land was given to the respondents. Thus, the complainant party had reason to implicate the accused/respondents in the false case. Injuries on the person of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] are not of serious nature. Defence version appears to be plausible.
It is well settled by now that if two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused could be accepted and it should not be a ground for interference in the judgment of acquittal.
The appellate court's jurisdiction to interfere is limited. When judgment of the trial court was neither perverse nor suffered from illegality or perversity, reversal of the judgment of acquittal is not justified. In support of this view reliance can be placed on [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT].
In any case, in catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has detailed the scope of interference in the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court. However, we need to extract the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT], in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guide lines as follows:-
"13.In the case of [PRECEDENT]. Reported at [PRECEDENT], one of us ([ENTITY], J.) detailed the law in this regard as follows: -
"46. This Court would ordinarily be slow in interfering in order of acquittal. The scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal is well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction.
Xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx
In [PRECEDENT] this Court held: (SCC p. 432, para 42) "(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 another judgment delivered in case Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 the Apex Court observed as under:-
"69. The following principles emerge from the cases above:
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong."
On perusal of the aforesaid guidelines it could well be noticed that the Court would interfere with the judgment of acquittal only when there are very substantial and compelling reasons to discard the trial court judgment.
In another decision in the case of [PRECEDENT], while approving the general principles dealing with an appeal against acquittal, Hon'ble Apex Court clearly observed that the court has full power to review, relook and re-appreciate the entire evidence based on which the order of acquittal is founded; further it was also accepted that the [ACT] puts no limitation or restriction on the appellate court to reach its own conclusion based on the evidence before it.
In the case of [PRECEDENT], the Apex Court observed as under:-
"27. The following principles have to be kept in mind by the appellate court while dealing with appeals, particularly against an order of acquittal:
(i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
ii) The appellate court in an appeal against acquittal can review the entire evidence and come to its own conclusions.
(iii) The appellate court can also review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
(iv) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal.
(v) 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.
(vi) While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities, it can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion.
(vii) 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."
Therefore, the settled proposition of law is that while dealing an appeal against the judgment of acquittal the appellate court can review or reappreciate the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is based and if the court reaches the conclusion that the lower Court's decision is based on erroneous views and against the settled position of law, then such an order of acquittal should be set aside. At the same time the appellate court should be vigilant enough to see if the trial Court has ignored material and relevant facts or misread such evidence or has ignored scientific documents. If so, then the appellate court has the jurisdiction to reverse the decision of the trial court.
On analysis of the entire evidence on the record, it transpires that the judgment impugned does not contain any such irregularity, illegality or perversity which may attract our attention for interference.
Consequently, finding no merit in the application for leave to appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.
([ENTITY]) ([ENTITY]) Judge Judge 15.07.2011 rp