IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.171-MA of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.05.2009 State of Haryana Applicant Versus Mehmooda @ Jhukau Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr.S.S.Randhawa, Additional Advocate General Haryana for the applicant ….. Jasbir Singh, J. State of Haryana has filed this application with a prayer to grant leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 30.1.2009, acquitting the respondent of the charges framed against him. It was allegation against the respondent that he had harboured the main accused Rustam, against whom, it was an allegation that he had abducted and committed rape upon Rukmina daughter of complainant Sedhu (PW1). It is on record that above named Rustam was declared a proclaimed offender. Charge sheet was framed against the respondent for commission of Criminal Misc. No.171-MA of 2009 2 an offence under Section 212 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence on record to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statement of the respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., incriminating material existing on record was put to him, which he declined, claimed innocence and false implication. In acquitting the respondent, the trial Court has rightly noted that there was delay in recording of FIR. Alleged occurrence had taken place on 19.4.2006, however, the matter was reported to the police on 27.4.2006, for which, no explanation has been given. Respondent is father-in-law of the main accused Rustam. Rukmina (PW2) is cousin of the above named main accused. The trial Court on analysis of evidence of PW1 Sedhu, PW2 Rukmina and the investigating officer Subhash Chander gave a definite finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that any part was played by respondent Mehmooda @ Jhukau regarding harbouring of accused Rustam. It was further opined that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the respondent had any knowledge that Rustam was an offender. We feel that the finding given by the trial Court in acquitting the respondent is justified and is in consonance with the evidence on record. Even in cases where two views are possible, ordinarily, the view taken by the trial Court in favour of the accused is to be accepted. 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, Criminal Misc. No.171-MA of 2009 3 two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 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.” Accordingly, this application fails and is dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 08.05.2009 (Jora Singh) gk Judge