HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. fic Hon?ble Shri Sunil Kuinar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 2000 The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Vs. Sandeep Maseeh 85 Others JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICB RAJEEV GUPTA J ^U^(<-^- Sd/- Chief Justice Post for Judgment : /yL/02/2010^ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH,BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon?ble Shri Sunil Kuinar Sinha, J. -u' APPELLANT Criminal Aopeal No. 1717 of 2000 The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS (.. Versus 1. Sandeep Maseeh, son of Shri Shantiyal Maseeh, aged about 25 years, R/o Police Line, Bilaspur 2. Vineet Singh, S/o Shri Sudheesh Singh Thakur, aged about 26 years, R/o Police Line, Bilaspur 3. Pankaj Singh, S/o Shri Sudheesh Singh Thakur, aged about 24 years, R/o Police Line, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District: Bilaspur (M.P.) (Now Chhattisgarh) (Appeal under Section 378 (1) ofThe Code ofCriminal Procedure) Aooearance: Mr. Akhil Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State. Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for the respondents. JUDGMENT ( 1^02.2010) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal dated 27.10.99 passed in Sessions Trial No. 139/99 by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, the State has filed this appeal. y^t 'i ^1 Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of2000 •,• (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Respondents- Sandeep Maseeh and Pankaj Singh were charged u/ss 353, 307 altematively 307/34 IPC. Respondent- Vineet Singh was charged u/ss 353, 307 alternatively 307/34 IPC and Section 25 (1) (b) of the Arms Act. The allegations are that on 24.12.98 at about 11.10 p.m., the respondents attempted the life of complainant Awadhesh Singh (PW-3), who was working as a constable and was on duty in Thana Kotwali, Bilaspur. It is alleged that respondent-Pankaj Singh was having a lathi, respondent-Sandeep Maseeh was having a rod and respondent-Vineet Singh was having a knife. The incident was witnessed by 3 eye-witnesses namely Rudrashankar (PW-4), Updesh Verma, (PW-6) and Vijay Kumar Verma (PW- 7). Updesh Verma (PW-6) and Vijay Kumar Verma (PW-7) were the civilians, whereas, Rudrashankar was also a police constable. The matter was reported to City Kotwali by injured Awadhesh Singh (PW-3) at about 11.45 p.m. on the same day and the First Information Report (Ex.-P/9) was registered. During the course of investigation, a knife was seized froni the possession of Vineet Singh vide seizure memo Ex.- P/l, a lathi was seized from the possession of Pankaj Singh vide seizure memo Ex.-P/S and an iron rod was seized from the possession of Sandeep Maseeh vide seizure memo Ex,- P/4. The uniform of the victim was also seized under Ex.- P/6. The victim was sent for his medical examination. He was examined by Dr. I.S. Bhatia (PW-2), who prepared his report Ex.-P/7. According to the M.L.C. report, there was a lacerated wound on the left parietal region, admeasuring 3cm x 116cm. Another lacerated wound was on the occipital region, admeasuring 3cm x lcm. Apart froni the above, there 7 -^- ^. "^" "WT@ i' ^y Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of2000 ^.'i were 2 abrasions on the left leg, admeasuring 3cm x lcm and lcm x ^ cm. The Doctor opined that the injuries on the head were caused by hard and blunt object. Injury Nos. 3 & 4 were simple injuries, whereas, no opinion regarding the injuries on the skull was given as the Doctor advised for X- ray examination of these injuries for deciding their nature. Respondent Vineet Singh was also sent for his medical exaraination vide memo Ex.-P/17 on 25.12.98 and was examined by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Shukla (DW-1), who prepared his report Ex.-D/S. Vineet Singh had sustained one lacerated wound, admeasuring 2cm x lcm x 5cm, on the right side of the forehead and one contusipn, admeasuring lcm x lcm, on the index-finger of the right hand. The Doctor opined that these injuries may be caused by hard and blunt object. The injuries were simple in nature. After completion of usual investigation, the charge- sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who in turn committed the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where, it was received on transfer by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, who conducted the trial and acquitted the respondents as above. (3) Mr. Akhil Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/State, argued that the Sessions Court erred in law in recording the acquittal of the respondents. On due scrutiny of entire evidence available on record, the prosecution had proved its case, therefore, thejudgment ofacquittal deserves to be set-aside. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. -^ ^ ^ 1 ^^ ^, • "-;- """'"% ^ •^,-^' "^E^ Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of2000 (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe sessions case. (6) Admittedly, out of 4 witnesses including the injured, 2 independent eye-witnesses namely Updesh Verma, (PW-6) and Vijay Kumar Verma (PW-7) have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. (7) Awadhesh Singh (PW-3) deposed that on the fateful day, when he was on duty at Madhyanagri Chowk, the respondents started abusing him. When he tried to stop them, they attacked over him. Vineet Singh was holding a knife, Pankaj Singh was holding a lathi and Sandeep Maseeh was holding a rod. Respondent Vineet gave 2 knife blows on him. The second blow could not hurt him as he was caught by constable Rudrashankar (PW-4). Pankaj Singh has assaulted him by a lathi on his left leg. He fell down on the ground. He was taken to the police station by Rudrashankar (PW-4), Vijay Kumar Verma (PW-7) and Updesh Verma, (PW-6). In the cross examination, he deposed that Vineet Singh has assaulted him by knife on his head due to which he received injury and the blood was coming out of the said injury. The Sessions Court observed that in normal course a knife injury should be a cut injury (incised wound) but no such injury was found on the person of this witness, therefore, his version was not corroborated by the medical evidence. v • ^ 6; v(- '-V. ^' /. i^"-.:---::sr'^•' Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 2000 (8) The Sessions Court further observed that Awadhesh Singh (PW-3), only deposed that respondent-Sandeep Maseeh was holding a rod, but he did not deposed that he was assaulted by rod by Sandeep, though in fhe F.I.R. (Ex.-P/9) it was mentioned by Awadhesh Singh (PW-3) that respondent-Sandeep Maseeh assaulted him by rod on his head and respondent-Vineet Singh assaulted by knife on his head. (9) Rudrashankar (PW-4) deposed that he was also posted as a constable in the City Kotwali along with coniplainant Awadhesh Singh (PW-3). He was on combing duty. When he reached in front of Lokswar Press, a boy told him that at some distance ahead marpitis going on with a constable. When he reached there along with another constable, Vijay Sharma (not examined in the case), he saw that 3 boys were beating Awadhesh Singh. Many persons were standing there. They caught respondent-Vineet Singh but he escaped away. Awadhesh Singh was lying on the ground and respondents-Pankaj Singh and Sandeep Maseeh were assaulting him by lathi and rod. They tookAwadhesh Singh to City Kotwali. Vineet Singh was holding a knife. He categorically deposed that he could not see that the injuries sustained on the skull of the victim were caused by which article. Awadhesh Singh lodged the report in the police station. His evidence shows that he had not seen respondent-Vineet Singh assaulting victim Awadhesh Singh by knife and it is also clear from his evidence that he could not see that by which weapon, the victim received injuries on his head. Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of2000 The learned Sessions Court observed that there is CQntradiction in the evidence of the victim and the eye-witness. Victim Awadhesh Singh did not depose about causing injury by rod by Sandeep Maseeh, whereas PW-4 deposed that Sandeep Maseeh caused injury by rod to the victim. The Sessions Court further observed that in the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/9), it was clearly mentioned that Sandeep Maseeh assaulted the victim by rod on his head but in the Court evidence, the sanie was not established either by victim Awadhesh Singh (PW-3) or eye-witness Rudrashankar (PW-4) and on the contrary, PW-3 deposed that the injuries on the head were caused by knife and PW-4 was not able to depose as to how the injuries on the head were caused. (10) We may further note that respondent-Vineet Singh had also sustained injuries in the same incident. None of the eye-witnesses have stated that how he received the above injuries. One of those injuries was a lacerated wound on the forehead. The prosecution has tried to explain those injuries by taking support of the contents of Mutarzar Form (Ex.-P/17) filled by the police for examination of the injured, in which, it has been mentioned that he had received injuries while escaping from the scene of occurrence. Mr. B.S. Parihar (PW-10-Investigating Officer) deposed that the version in the aforesaid Form (Ex.-P/17) was written as per information given by the accused. We find that in the statement of the accused recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., no questions have been put to respondent/accused Vineet Singh in this regard. '/ ^ ^ Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 2000 .1 Therefore, the said version of the Investigating Officer explaining the inj'uries sustained by respondent-Vineet Singh cannot be taken for the purpose that the injuries sustained by the accused was duly explained. (11) Apart from the above, it does not come that the injuries sustained by the victim were dangerous to life or sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In fact, the genesis of the offence appears to have been suppressed by the prosecution. It appears that while the victim was on combing duty, and he reached to the place of occurrence, on account of some differences between the complainant and the accused persons, a quarrel took place and the person belonging to both the sides sustained Injunes. (12) It is in these circumstances, the learned Sessions Court has acquitted the respondents/accused by giving them benefit of doubt. (13) In Budh Sinah and others -Vs.- State of U.P. (2006) 9 SCC 731, the Apex Court held vide para 9, that in a matter of appeal against acquittal, the High Court does not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, although the view of the Appellate Court is a more probable one. However, while dealing with ajudgment of acquittal, it is free to consider the entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse 7 /V m ^:^.. "^a ^^ Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of2000 or otherwise unsustainable. It is also entitled to consider as to whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court has failed to take into consideration admissible evidence and has taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject matter of the scrutiny of the Appellate Court. (14) In V.N. Ratheesh -Vs.- State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 2667, the Apex Court held that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The Apex Court said that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration ofjustice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Apex Court further said that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage ofjustice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilt is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the Appellate Court to re- appreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. The Apex Court referred to /ftf\ ^'^ ^^ "1 'Y "^^ ^ ••^. . ^. ^ ^. v^.^;" ^/ • .^^ Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of2000 the decision rendered in the matter of Bhaawan Sinah and others -Vs.- State ofMadhua Pradesh (2002 (2} Supreme 567). It was further held that the principle to be followed by Appellate Court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materialsfl have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. (15) We have gone through the entire evidence on record with a view to find out as to whether the views of the Sessions Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. After going through the entire evidence available on record, we do not find any compelling and substantial reasons to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Its not a case in which the judgment may be said to be unreasonable or a case in which relevant and convincing materials have been eliminated in the process of appreciation. (16) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal filed by the State, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti