Criminal Misc. No. 689-MA of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 689-MA of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.8.2010 State of Punjab ..Applicant-Appellant Versus Randeep Singh Khokhar and another ..Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA Present:- Ms. Manjri Nehru Kaul, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the applicant-appellant. H.S.BHALLA, J. Crl.Misc. No. 30568 of 2010 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Criminal Misc. Application stands disposed of. Criminal Misc. No. 689-MA of 2010 Through this application filed under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant-State has sought permission to file an appeal against judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, (Ad hoc ), Taran Taran vide which he acquitted the accused-respondents for offences punishable under Sections 363/366/376 and 506 read with section 34 IPC. The detailed facts have been recapitulated in the judgment of the learned trial Court and in order to avoid repetition, they are not being reproduced in the judgment herein. That apart, the facts discussed by the Criminal Misc. No. 689-MA of 2010 2 learned trial court are not being disputed by both the parties in any manner. Accused were charge sheeted under Sections 363/366/376/506 and 344 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and thereafter closed its evidence. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant- State as also learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents at length and with their able assistance have also gone through the evidence of the prosecution and the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, (Ad hoc) Taran Taran meticulously. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State has assiduously argued that the learned court below committed a grave error in acquitting the accused respondents without taking into consideration the testimony of the witnesses produced by the prosecution in its correct perspective. Learned State counsel has further contended that the learned court below fell in error in holding that prosecutrix was a consenting party. Rather, it was the appellant, who abducted the prosecutrix, committed rape with her and then forcibly performed marriage against her wishes, but strangely enough, these important aspects of the matter were totally ignored by the learned trial court. Learned counsel has further brought to the notice of this court that the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge while dealing with the case is based on hypothesis which is liable to be reversed. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab. We are not convinced to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel. The contentions raised by the learned State counsel, in our considered view, have been dealt with by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in a Criminal Misc. No. 689-MA of 2010 3 comprehensive manner giving sound reasoning therein on the strength of material available on the record. Having analyzed the entire testimony of the prosecution witnesses available on the record as also the finding recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, we are of the considered view that the learned court below is right in acquitting the accused respondents on the strength of ocular as well as medical evidence by observing that it was not a case of forced act on the part of any of the accused to entice the prosecutrix with an intention to marry her. Rather prosecutrix herself had compelled the boy and she admitted even by writing letters to the Senior Superintendent of Police and other higher authorities about her act and disclosed her age to be over 18 years. In such like circumstances, we are of the view that approach of the learned trial court in holding that offence against the accused under section 363 IPC is not made out can not at all be said to be unjustified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are further of the view that prosecutrix never offered any resistance to the act done by the appellant. She never lodged any protest at any stage with the higher authorities. Record further spells out that prosecutrix was medico legally examined by Dr. Preet Kamal (PW-8) who has specifically deposed that there was no injury mark on the private part of the prosecutrix nor there was any blood found at the time of medical examination. In such like circumstances, observation made by the learned trial Judge that prosecutrix was a consenting party can not at all be said to be erroneous. The contention of the learned State counsel that it was a case of abduction, rape and marriage can not at all be countenanced after scanning and weighing the entire evidence available on the record. The learned trial Judge, in our considered view, has further rightly held that it is a proved case of run away marriage, which the prosecutrix has conducted with accused Binni. We are further of the view that even if two Criminal Misc. No. 689-MA of 2010 4 views are possible, there is no ground to set aside the well reasoned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The Scope of appeal under section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, is wide enough to allow the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. However, there are several cases in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the courts must be careful in reversing the judgment or order of acquittal and that the order of acquittal should not be interfered with merely because another view than the one taken by the trial court is possible. In Shingara Singh Versus State of Haryana and another with Subha Singh Versus State of Haryana and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 124 : (2004 Cri LJ 828), it has been held that “ where two views are reasonably possible on the basis of evidence on record, the one that favours the accused must be accepted. It was also held that in any event in a case of acquittal, if the view of the trial court is possible, reasonable view on the basis of evidence on record, interference by the High court may not be justified.” In C. Antony V. K.G. Raghavan Nair reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 182: (2003 Cri LJ 411), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “though the appellate court has full power to re-appreciate evidence but without coming to a definite conclusion that findings by the trial court are perverse, it can not substitute the findings of the trial court by taking a totally different perspective and convict the accused. When such is the possible in case of appeal against acquittal, stronger grounds are needed to interfere with the order of acquittal by exercising the power of revision. In the light of what has been discussed above, we find no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court (Ad hoc), Taran Taran Criminal Misc. No. 689-MA of 2010 5 Accordingly, leave to appeal sought by the appellant-State through the instant application moved under Section 378 (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, is declined. ( H.S.BHALLA ) JUDGE 17.8.2010 ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) VK JUDGE