Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2490 (RAJ)

Mahesh v. State of Rajasthan

2017-11-13

SABINA

body2017
ORDER : Sabina, J. Respondent No. 1 had faced trial under Section 460 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 3.4.2006 ordered the acquittal of the respondent No.1 of the charge framed against him. Hence, the present petition by the complainant. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. 3. Learned trial court while ordering acquittal of respondent No.1 has taken in consideration the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. Although, it was the prosecution story that the respondent No.1 had entered the house of the deceased with a view to loot Rs. 50,000/-. However, during trial prosecution had failed to establish that respondent No.1 had the knowledge that the deceased was having Rs. 50,000/- in her possession. Prosecution had also failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances which would lead to the inference that the offence had been committed by respondent No.1 and none other. 4. Application moved by the State for leave to appeal was dismissed as the defects pointed by the office had not been removed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the trial court. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, reasons given by the trial court while ordering the acquittal of the respondent No.1 are sound reasons. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748, has held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. 7. Similarly, in Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011 (9) Supreme Court Cases 479, the Hon'ble 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, reconsider and review the evidence and take its own decision. However, if the appeal is heard by an appellate court, being the final court of fact, is fully competent to re-appreciate, 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 the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed" 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case no ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed.