Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1697 (MAD)

State by Public Prosecutor v. Sathasivam & Others

2004-12-13

R.BANUMATHI

body2004
Judgment :- For the Custodial Death of Vasantha, Respondents / Police Personnel were charged for the offence under Sec.306 I.P.C and other offences in S.C.No.190 of 1995 on the file of Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. By the Judgment dated 14.08.1996, the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddalore has acquitted the Respondents / Accused of all the charges. Aggrieved over the Judgment of Acquittal, State has preferred this Appeal. 2. Facts, which led to the present Appeal could be stated thus:- A-1-Sadasivam was S.I.Police; A-2-Sundaramurthy-H.C.313; A-3-Gunasekaran-Gr.I. P.C.642; A-4-Kasirajan-PC 1748; and A-5-Rahamathullah-PC.1361 attached to Muthandikuppam Police Station. 3. Deceased - Vasantha is the Second Wife of P.W.1-Natesa Padayachi. P.W.5-Krishnamurthy is the Brother and P.W.7-Sellabangi is the Sister of P.W.1. P.W.3-Pattayee is the Moter of P.W.2-Srinivasan. P.W.6-Rajavelu is the Father of the Deceased. 4. P.W.2-Srinivasan was working in the house of P.W.1 and developed friendship with Deceased-Vasantha. On 14.03.1994, P.W.2 eloped with Deceased-Vasantha and both of them stayed in Pondicherry. Regarding missing of Vasantha, P.W.1 preferred a Complaint in Muthandikuppam Police Station on 17.03.1994. P.W.2 came back to the House and learnt from his Uncle that P.W.1 has given a Complaint, complaining about the missing of Vasantha. Hence, on 22.03.1994, P.W.2-Srinivasan and his Mother P.W.3-Pattayee went to the Police Station along with Deceased-Vasantha. P.W.1 also came to the Police Station. Enquiry was conducted by A-1 regarding Kidnapping, Abduction of Vasantha by P.W.2-Srinivasan and for the return of Jewels alleged to have been given to Vasantha by P.W.1 and his Son. After Enquiry, without registering any case, Vasantha was illegally detained in Muthandikuppam Police Station through out the day and Night on 22/23.03.1994. To avoid any complaint for illegal detention, A-1 is alleged to have obtained a Complaint from P.W.1-Natesa Padayachi on the Kidnap of his Wife-Vasantha by P.W.2-Srinivasan at about 10.30 p.m on 22.03.1994 and on that basis registered a case under Sec.366 I.P.C against P.W.2-Srinivasan. False entries are alleged to have been made in the General Diary and F.I.R that Vasantha and Srinivasan appeared in Muthandikuppam Police Station at 11.30 p.m on 22.03.1994. P.W.3-Pattayee-Mother of P.W.2-Srinivasan was also illegally kept in the Police Station on the night of 22/23.03.1994. False entries have also been made in the General Diary stating that as if Pattayee was staying in the Police Station for legal purpose. 5. P.W.3-Pattayee-Mother of P.W.2-Srinivasan was also illegally kept in the Police Station on the night of 22/23.03.1994. False entries have also been made in the General Diary stating that as if Pattayee was staying in the Police Station for legal purpose. 5. A-1-Sadasivam is alleged to have beaten Vasantha on the night of 22/23.03.1994 at Muthandikuppam Police Station in order to extract a Confession Statement from her and to know about the Jewels and also to find out the places visited by her in the Company of P.W.2-Srinivasan. A-3-Gunasekaran-Grade I P.C.642 and A-4-Kasirajan-P.C.1748 were also present on 22/23.03.1994 when Vasantha was interrogated by A-1-Sadasivam. On the night of 22/23.03.1994, A-3 and A-4 were on Para duty and guarded the said Vasantha. On 23.03.1994 – 07.30 a.m, the said Vasantha committed suicide by hanging in the Muthandikuppam Police Station. A-1 to A-5 are alleged to have abetted the commission of suicide by the said Vasantha. A-1-S.I. of Police has preferred a Special Report (Ex.P.6) on the Death of Vasantha on 23.03.1994. On the basis of Ex.P.6, Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur has registered the case in Crime No.96/94 under Sec.174 Crl.P.C. 6. Since the Death was Custodial Death, Inquest was conducted by the Sub-Collector, Cuddalore on 23.03.1994. The case was transferred to Crime Branch C.I.D., Cuddalore. On the basis of Statements of Witnesses – Krishnamurthy, Ramalingam and Dhandapani and the Preliminary Investigation, F.I.R was altered into Sec.302, 376(B) and 201 I.P.C under Ex.P.10-Express Report. 7. After the Inquest, the body was sent to Post Mortem. P.W.15-Dr.Mangayarkkarasi has noted the Ligatures marks around the Neck and issued Ex.P.4 – Post Mortem Certificate, opining that the Death was due to Hanging. P.W.16-Inspector of Police had taken up the Investigation. Ex.P.8-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.9 - Rough Plan were prepared regarding the place of occurrence – Muthandikuppam Police Station. On completion of Investigation, the Accused were charge sheeted as follows:- A-1 to A-5 .... U/s. 306 I.P.C A-1 .... U/s. 218, 220, 330 I.P.C A-1,A-3 to A-5.... U/s. 342, 348 r/w 34 I.P.C A-1,A-3 & A-4 .... U/s. 342 r/w 34 I.P.C. 8. To substantiate the Charges against the Accused, Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16. Exs.P.1 to P.24 were marked, M.Os.1 to 15 were produced. The Accused were questioned under Sec.313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. Denying the Charges, A-1 has stated that a false case has been foisted against him. U/s. 342 r/w 34 I.P.C. 8. To substantiate the Charges against the Accused, Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16. Exs.P.1 to P.24 were marked, M.Os.1 to 15 were produced. The Accused were questioned under Sec.313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. Denying the Charges, A-1 has stated that a false case has been foisted against him. A-2 to A-4 have also denied the Charges contending that a false case has been foisted against him and that they are not responsible for the suicidal death of Deceased – Vasantha. 9. In consideration of the evidence, learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that when P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 have refused to take back Vasantha, Vasantha was necessarily to be kept in Muthandikuppam Police Station and that the offence under Sec.342 I.P.C is not made out. Manipulation of records regarding Registration of the case in Crime No.96/94 was not pressed by the Prosecution even in the Sessions Court. Pointing out that P.Ws.3 and 9 have not spoken anything about the beating and that there was no injury on the body of Deceased-Vasantha, the Accused were acquitted under Sec.330 I.P.C. (A-1); Sec.330 r/w 34 I.P.C (A-2 to A-5). In reference to the evidence and finding that mere utterance of the words would not attract Sec.306 I.P.C, learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted all the Accused under Sec.306 I.P.C also. 10. Aggrieved over the Acquittal, State has preferred this Appeal. Contending that the Acquittal cannot be sustained, learned Government Advocate interalia submitted that when Wrongful Confinement of Vasantha on the night of 22/23.03.1994 is well proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, and the same was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Making forcible submission, learned Government Advocate has submitted that after examining Vasantha and P.W.2 in connection with Crime No.96/94, Vasantha ought to have been let out or atleast woman police constable ought to have been secured for Para duty. Drawing the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.W.9, learned Government Advocate has pointed out that refusal of A-1 to send back Vasantha is well brought out. Pointing out the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and other evidence, learned Government Advocate has submitted that there are enough materials for establishing the Charge under Sec.306 I.P.C, which was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Pointing out the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and other evidence, learned Government Advocate has submitted that there are enough materials for establishing the Charge under Sec.306 I.P.C, which was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Submitting that the reasonings of the Acquittal are perverse, ignoring the material evidence on record, learned Government Advocate prays for reversal of Order of Acquittal. 11. Contending that the Trial Court has given cogent and consistent reasonings for recording the Acquittal, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents / Accused have submitted that when P.W.1-Husband of Vasantha, P.W.2-Srinivasan and P.W.6-Father of Deceased had refused to take back Vasantha, she had to be necessarily kept in the Police Station. It is further submitted that A-1 had made necessary arrangements for securing women constable during the night of 22/23.03.1994. Vasantha was properly taken care of by P.W.3 and that there was no Wrongful Confinement. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that mere utterance of words would not amount to intentional abuse attracting abetment to commit suicide. It is contended that the Acquittal is well balanced warranting no interference. In support of the contention that mere utterance of words would not attract abetment to commit suicide, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decisions reported in SWAMY PRAHALADOSS ..VS.. STATE OF M.P (1995 S.C.C. (CRL) 943), RAMESHKUMAR ..VS.. STATE OF CHATTISGARH (2002 S.C.C. (CRL) 1088) and SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR ..VS.. STATE OF M.P (2002 S.C.C. (CRL) 1141). 12. Drawing the attention of the Court to number of decisions in dealing with the Appeals against Acquittal, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Appellate Court could review the evidence and interfere with the findings only when the reasonings are palpably erroneous and demonstrably unsustainable. It is submitted that when the reasonings and findings are based on evidence, the same cannot be interfered with. 13. In consideration of the contentions of both sides, Judgment of the Trial Court, materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal against Acquittal:- (1) Whether the Custodial Death is proved to be due to torture by A-1 to A-5? (2) Whether the findings of the Trial Court for Acquittal are palpably wrong and warranting interference? 14. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, it was reported that A-5-Rahamadulla-P.C.1361 died and the same is recorded. 15. (2) Whether the findings of the Trial Court for Acquittal are palpably wrong and warranting interference? 14. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, it was reported that A-5-Rahamadulla-P.C.1361 died and the same is recorded. 15. Supporting the finding of the Acquittal, learned Senior Counsel for the First Accused has forcibly contended that the High Court would interfere in the order of Acquittal only if there had been mis-reading of evidence or perverse in the findings. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decisions reported in RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI ..VS.. STATE OF GUJARAT (1996 CRL L.J 2867); AWADHESH AND ANOTHER ..VS.. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (1988 CRL.L.J. 1154); GARASIA RATUBHA HANUBHA ..VS.. STATE OF GUJARAT (1997 S.C.C. (CRL) 195); BIHARI NATH GOSWAMI ..VS.. SHIV KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS (2004 S.C.C.(CRL) 1435) and SHILENDRA PRATHAP ..VS.. STATE OF U.P (2003 S.C.C. (CRL) 432). 16. In the decision reported in RAMESH BABULAL DOSHI ..VS.. STATE OF GUJARAT (1996 CRL.L.J. 2867) it has been held that while sitting in Judgment over an Acquittal, the Appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the Trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 17. In all the above decisions, the well settled principle is re-iterated that the Acquittal is not to be disturbed unless the findings of the Trial Court are perverse. It is well settled that the Appellate Court is required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the Trial Court are palpably wrong manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, the order of Acquittal is not to be disturbed. The mere fact that the Appellate Court might arrive at a decision other than the one taken by the Trial Court cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of Acquittal. In the light of the well settled propositions laid in the above decisions, it is to be seen whether the assessment of evidence Acquitting the Police Personnel for Custodial Death of Vasantha suffers from glaring infirmities warranting interference. 18. In the light of the well settled propositions laid in the above decisions, it is to be seen whether the assessment of evidence Acquitting the Police Personnel for Custodial Death of Vasantha suffers from glaring infirmities warranting interference. 18. In the Trial Court, the Accused have been charged as under:- A-1 is charged for the offences Under Sections : 342, 220, 218, 330 I.P.C A-2 to A-5 are charged for the offences under Sections:342 r/w 34,218 r/w 34 IPC A-3 to A-5 are charged for the offences under Sections: 330 r/w 34 I.P.C. A-1 to A-4 are charged for the offences under Sections: 306 I.P.C. 19. Under Sec.342 I.P.C against } A-1; U/s.342 r/w.34 I.P.C } ...Wrongful Confinement against A-2 to A-5 } There is no denying that Vasantha was kept in Muthandikuppam Police Station throughout the day and night on 22/23.03.1994 without registration of any case. Main contention of the Prosecution is that without registration of the case, there was illegal detention of Vasantha. It is further submitted that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 8, it clearly brings home the point that there had been Wrongful Confinement, which aspect was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. From the evidence, it is brought out on record that P.W.1-Husband of Vasantha was not willing to take her back; P.W.2-Srinivasan also not willing to take her back; P.W.6-Father of Vasantha was also unwilling to take his Daughter back. With no other go, Vasantha has been kept in Muthandikuppam Police Station. From the evidence of P.W.9-Village President, it is seen that P.Ws.1,2 and 6 have refused to take back Vasantha. Since the talks went on till 11.00 p.m and they could not arrive at a conclusion regarding taking back of Vasantha they went to their houses. Again they went to the Police Station on the next day morning persuading the Police not to register the case. At about 08.00 a.m, P.W.9 learnt from P.W.6-Father of Vasantha that Vasantha had committed suicide. 20. Thus, it has been proved that nobody was prepared to take her back. The First Accused-S.I of Police has to necessarily determine as to whom the custody is to be handed over. Since it is a matrimonial dispute, A-1 waited under the bonafide impression that the matter would be amicably settled. 20. Thus, it has been proved that nobody was prepared to take her back. The First Accused-S.I of Police has to necessarily determine as to whom the custody is to be handed over. Since it is a matrimonial dispute, A-1 waited under the bonafide impression that the matter would be amicably settled. From the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 9, learned Assistant Sessions Judge found that there had been no Wrongful Confinement and the said finding which is based on evidence, does not suffer from error. 21. Under Sec.218 I.P.C against }...Public Servant A-1; U/s.218 r/w.34 I.P.C }framing incorrect record against A-2 to A-5 }to save a person from Punishment P.W.2-Srinivasan and Vasantha left the Village on 14.03.1994 and they went to Pondicherry and stayed. P.W.1 lodged the Complaint about the missing of his Wife on 17.03.1994. On that Complaint, immediately no case has been registered. In Crime No.96/94, case under Sec.366 I.P.C was registered on 23.03.1994 at 02.00 a.m. Though Vasantha was in custody from 09.00 a.m, no case has been registered. Obviously, the case must have been hurriedly registered, knowing about the suicide of Vasantha making it as the last entry in the General Diary on 22.03.1994. Registration of F.I.R. on 23.03.2004 at 02.00 a.m is clear from the following endorsement in the General Diary: 22. Two things are made clear: (i) Though Vasantha was in custody from 09.00 a.m, on 22.03.1994, no case was registered on the Complaint preferred by P.W.1; Registration of the case in Crime No.96/94 and the last entry for the day was made thereon in the General Diary; (ii) Though Vasantha was in custody from 09.00 a.m, on 22.03.1994, request for posting for Woman Police Constable was sought for only at the early hours of 05.45 a.m on 23.03.1994. 23. P.W.12 was the Incharge of the Armed Reserve, Cuddalore from 22.03.1994–08.00 p.m to 23.03.1994–08.00 a.m. According to P.W.12, he received intimation from Muthandikuppam Police Station for deputing two Women Police Constable only at 05.45 a.m on 23.03.1994. From the above it is clear that there seems to have some last minute efforts to cover up the occurrence to avoid complications. A-1 seems to have hurriedly registered the case. Though there had been prima facie material on this Charge under Sec.218 I.P.C, in the Trial Court, the Prosecution has not pressed the Charge and the Plea. From the above it is clear that there seems to have some last minute efforts to cover up the occurrence to avoid complications. A-1 seems to have hurriedly registered the case. Though there had been prima facie material on this Charge under Sec.218 I.P.C, in the Trial Court, the Prosecution has not pressed the Charge and the Plea. Since the Charges were not persuaded, the Accused were necessarily to be acquitted. 24. Under Sec.220 I.P.C } .... Confinement by person Against A-1; U/s.220 } having authority who knows r/w.34 I.P.C against } that he is acting contrary to A-2 to A-5 } law Charge against A-1 is that he kept Deceased-Vasantha and P.W.2 in Wrongful Confinement knowing that in doing so, he is acting contrary to law. A-2 to A-5 are alleged to have shared the common intention. Learned Government Advocate has contended that after examining P.W.2 and Deceased-Vasantha in connection with “Woman Missing” case, Vasantha ought to have been released and that her further Confinement was contrary to law and hence, the Acquittal under Sec.220 I.P.C cannot be sustained. This contention has no force. No doubt, Vasantha and P.W.2-Srinivasan were confined in Muthandikuppam Police Station, but there is no proof of unlawful Confinement. As noted earlier, it was a matrimonial dispute and after Enquiry, custody of Vasantha is to be handed over. P.W.2 has to be interrogated regarding the places where both of them had went. No doubt, there had been confinement of Vasantha and P.W.2. But, the Confinement cannot be said to be “corruptly and maliciously” to attract the ingredients under Sec.220 I.P.C. The Acquittal under Sec.220 I.P.C does not suffer from any serious error. 25. Under Sec.330 I.P.C against }...Voluntarily causing A-1; U/s.330 r/w.34 I.P.C } hurt to extract against A-3 to A-5 } Confession P.W.1 has stated that A-1 had beaten Vasantha on the backside of Hip. On the other hand, P.Ws.2 and 6 have stated that A-1 had beaten Vasantha on the Thigh. P.W.9- Village President has not at all spoken about A-1 beating Vasantha. P.W.15-Dr.Mangayarkkarasi has conducted Autopsy on the body of Deceased-Vasantha. No external injuries of beating were noted by her (vide Ex.P.4-Post Mortem Certificate). On the other hand, P.Ws.2 and 6 have stated that A-1 had beaten Vasantha on the Thigh. P.W.9- Village President has not at all spoken about A-1 beating Vasantha. P.W.15-Dr.Mangayarkkarasi has conducted Autopsy on the body of Deceased-Vasantha. No external injuries of beating were noted by her (vide Ex.P.4-Post Mortem Certificate). Pointing out the contradictions in the Oral Evidence and the Medical Evidence of P.W.15, learned Assistant Sessions Judge acquitted the Accused under Sec.330 I.P.C. Though P.Ws.1,2 and 6 have consistently spoken about the beating, learned Assistant Sessions Judge has acquitted the Accused mainly on the ground that there had been no injury on the person of Vasantha. In appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court might have taken a different view, but arriving at such a view cannot be the reason for interference with the Order of Acquittal. The Acquittal of the Appellants / Accused under Sec.330 I.P.C though not a sound one, cannot be interfered with in an Appeal against Acquittal. 26. Under Sec.306 I.P.C } .....Abetment of Suicide against A-1 to A-4 } A-1 is said to have scolded and abused Vasantha, saying That A-1 was scolding and abusing Vasantha is also spoken by P.W.2. Assailing the Acquittal, learned Government Advocate has submitted that there had been no proper treatment, who was a victim in Crime No.96/94. The learned Government Advocate made forcible submissions that instead of treating her as victim and determining as to whom the custody is to be handed over, she herself was treated as Accused subjecting her to cruelty and A-1 abusing her and such cruelty led Vasantha to commit suicide in the Police Custody. Repelling the contentions, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that mere verbal abuse would not amount to abetment to commit suicide. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in SWAMY PRAHALADOSS ..VS.. STATE OF M.P (1995 S.C.C. (CRL) 943) and RAMESHKUMAR ..VS.. STATE OF CHATTISGARH (2002 S.C.C. (CRL) 1088). It is appropriate to refer the observations and findings in the decision reported in SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR ..VS.. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in SWAMY PRAHALADOSS ..VS.. STATE OF M.P (1995 S.C.C. (CRL) 943) and RAMESHKUMAR ..VS.. STATE OF CHATTISGARH (2002 S.C.C. (CRL) 1088). It is appropriate to refer the observations and findings in the decision reported in SANJU @ SANJAY SINGH SENGAR ..VS.. STATE OF M.P (2002 S.C.C. (CRL) 1141) wherein it has been held that mere utterance of words in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment, such as “..to go and die..” cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea, which runs as follows:- “Penal Code,1860 – S.107 Firstly – Ingredients – Instigating a person to do a thing – held, “Instigate” denoes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite – Presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant for instigation – Words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as “to go and die”, cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. Penal Code, 1860 – S.306 r/w.S.107 – Abetment of suicide – Quarrel taking place between Appellant and deceased in which appellant was said to have told the deceased “to go and die” – Deceased found dead two days later – Held, suicide was not proximate to the quarrel though the deceased was named in the suicide note – Hence, suicide was not the direct result of the quarrel when the appellant used abusive language and told the deceased to go and die”. 27. In the light of the above, it is to be seen whether the words uttered by the Accused would amount to intentional abuse and abetment to commit suicide. A-1 is alleged to have stated There is no evidence of direct nexus that these words uttered by A-1 led to the suicide of Vasantha. 28. One is to visualise the factual situation. Vasantha was the Second Wife of P.W.1-Natesa Padayachi, aged about 50 years, resident of Perperiyankuppam. P.W.2-Srinivasn was employed in the house of P.W.1. While he was employed, P.W.2 is said to have developed illicit intimacy with Vasantha. Both P.W.2 and Vasantha had eloped from the village on 14.03.1994 and they went to Pondicherry and stayed in Mettupalayam. P.W.1 lodged the Complaint on the missing of his Wife. P.W.2 and Vasantha were caught and brought to the Police Station. While he was employed, P.W.2 is said to have developed illicit intimacy with Vasantha. Both P.W.2 and Vasantha had eloped from the village on 14.03.1994 and they went to Pondicherry and stayed in Mettupalayam. P.W.1 lodged the Complaint on the missing of his Wife. P.W.2 and Vasantha were caught and brought to the Police Station. The circumstances in which she was caught with the man, with whom she eloped, must have put Vasantha in a fix and confused state of mind. She was detained in the police Station from the morning of 22.03.1994. She must have seen the dispute between P.Ws.1 and 2 and her Father-P.W.6 in taking her back to the House. In that situation, Vasantha must have been fully dejected and frustrated. The alternative possibility of Vasantha committing suicide out of frustration is also to be kept in view. The mere wordy abuse alleged by the Prosecution cannot be the sole ground for convicting the Accused under Sec.306 I.P.C. 29. M.Os.1 to 8 are the Jewels and Wearing Apparels of Deceased – Vasantha. These properties must have been seized as the properties regarding Crime No.96/94. Though the Jewels were said to have been seized on 23.03.1994, they were sent to the Court only on 17.01.1995 along with the Charge Sheet. In paragraph 37, elaborately pointing out the lapses in the evidence of recovery of Jewels and the Delay in sending the Properties to the Court, learned Trial Judge has raised serious doubts on the Prosecution version. Recovery of Jewels and Wearing Apparels – M.Os.1 to 8 has no bearing on the allegation of “Abetment to commit Suicide”. 30. By perusal of the entries in the General Diary and over all analysis of the case, it is clear that there had been last minute efforts to cover up the occurrence and to avoid legal punishment by registering the case in Crime No.96/94 at 02.00 a.m. on 23.03.1994. There had been delay in calling for the Women Police Constable to be posted on Para duty to Vasantha. But, these grounds alone cannot be the reason for reversing the Judgment of Acquittal. Learned Trial Judge has dealt with the evidence in proper perspective. It is not necessary for the High Court to go through every reasonings and give its reasonings to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. But, these grounds alone cannot be the reason for reversing the Judgment of Acquittal. Learned Trial Judge has dealt with the evidence in proper perspective. It is not necessary for the High Court to go through every reasonings and give its reasonings to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. When there is no illegality in the assessment of evidence, the Order of Acquittal cannot be interfered with. This Appeal has no merits and the same is bound to fail. 31. C.A.No.718 of 1997:- For the reasons stated above, this Appeal is dismissed.