CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 711 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: October 04, 2011. Parties Name Gobind ...APPLICANT VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina PRESENT: Mr. Pankaj, Advocate, for Mr. Jitender Dhanda, Advocate, for the applicant Jasbir Singh, J. JUDGMENT This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment of acquittal qua respondents No. 2 and 3, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jind, on January 14, 2011. As per facts on record, the private respondents along with Pawan Kumar, Surender, Sonu and Chhotu Ram were summoned to face CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 711 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -2- trial for commission of offences under Sections 302/201/148/149 IPC. They were arraigned as accused in FIR No. 152 registered on June 24, 2009, in Police Station Uchana, district Jind. On conclusion of trial, Pawan Kumar, Surender, Sonu and Chhotu were convicted and sentenced. However, respondents No. 2 and 3 were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Hence this appeal. It was allegation against the accused that they had committed murder of Virender son of Patel on June 24, 2009. FIR was recorded on a statement made by Roop Chand, Panch, Gram Panchayat village Khatkar, to the effect that at about 11.30 AM, he was informed by Anand son of Jaggu that a dead body was lying in a water channel adjoining his fields, near to the road. Dead body had injury marks on the head. Tata Sumo vehicle was also lying parked 2/ 2 ½ Acres away from the dead body. He has further stated that there were blood stains on stepny and back seat of the vehicle. On above statement made by Roop Chand, FIR was recorded. Dead body was identified by Govind son of Patel and Ajit son of Partap, resident of village Rajli, (brother and uncle respectively of the deceased). It was a case of blind murder. None was named as an accused in the FIR. The police conducted investigation by looking into call details of telephone of the deceased. During investigation, accused, namely, Pawan Kumar, Surender, Sonu and Chhotu Ram were arrested. In their disclosure statements, they also alleged that respondents No. 2 and 3 were also their companions in committing the crime. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court. The accused were charge-sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 711 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -3- claimed trial. The prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they claimed innocence and false implication. The trial Court, after looking into evidence, came to a conclusion that the chain of the circumstances is complete to convict the accused, other than respondents No. 2 and 3. By noting that it was a case of blind murder and no identification parade has been conducted, the trial Court came to a conclusion that participation of respondents No. 2 and 3 was not proved on record. It was also noted that virtually there is no evidence against respondent No. 2 Amar Nath and respondent No. 3 Vikram. They were not even named in the FIR. Their names figured only in some disclosure statements made by accused Pawan Kumar and Chhotu. No injury was attributed to them. They were not properly identified by Govind PW in Court. By noting as above, they were ordered to be acquitted. We are satisfied that an attempt has been made by the trial Court to separate truth from falsehood. The verdict given is as per law and facts on record. It is a case where, in view of evidence on record, it can safely be said that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the private respondents. Even in cases where two views are possible, after acquittal, in appeal, benefit will go to the accused. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 711 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -4- A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001 (1) RCR (Criminal) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under: “We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.” To the same effect is the ratio of the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415. Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, (Criminal Appeal No. 1719 of 2011), decided on September 5, 2011, the 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, CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 711 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -5- 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 CRIMINAL MISC. -A- 711 -MA OF 2011 (O&M) -6- the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed. “ Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence on the part of the trial Court or any other factual error in the judgment, which may necessitate any interference by this Court. The opinion expressed by the trial Court was possible in view of evidence on record. This application is also barred by limitation. No cogent explanation has been given to condone the delay. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Sabina) Judge October 04 , 2011 DKC