Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 591 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjeev Kumar

2017-05-25

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) laying challenge to the judgment, dated 31.12.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge(II), Kangra, at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 36/2011, whereby the accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376 and 511 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). 2. Tersely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution, are that on 21.11.2005 the prosecutrix (name withheld), alongwith her friend Daya Devi, went to Mali Ration Depot from her village Gharchindi. Around 11 a.m., when both of them were coming back, through forest area, accused, Sanjeev Kumar, tried to sexually assault the prosecutrix by pulling her clothes. The accused also snatched the ‘dupatta’ of the prosecutrix and tried to strangulate her with it. Thereafter, accused threw the prosecutrix in a drain after putting some papers in her mouth. It has further come in the prosecution story that Daya Devi came from the spot and the prosecutrix could not come. Daya Devi, on being inquired by mother of the prosecutrix, narrated the incidence to her. Resultantly, parents of the prosecutrix alongwith others searched and found her at Kunal Khola, in an unconscious condition. The prosecutrix had sustained injuries, so she was immediately taken to hospital and police was accordingly informed. Police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix, whereupon an FIR was registered. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. Police prepared the spot map, seized salwar, chappal and dupatta of the prosecutrix and also seized bark of the tree with which accused allegedly tied the dupatta. The sealed parcels were sent for chemical examination and reports of chemical analysis were also obtained. Police thoroughly investigated the matter and after conclusion of investigation challan was presented in the Court. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seventeen witnesses. The statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded. No defence witness was led by the accused. 4. The learned Court below, vide its judgment dated 31.12.2011, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 376, 511 and 323 IPC, hence the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 6. No defence witness was led by the accused. 4. The learned Court below, vide its judgment dated 31.12.2011, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 376, 511 and 323 IPC, hence the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State and learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court are wrong and illegal, as the learned Court below rendered its findings on surmises and conjectures, ignoring the weight of available evidence against the accused. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence to its right perspective. He prayed that the judgment of acquittal may be set aside and the accused may be convicted. In contrast to the arguments addressed by the learned Deputy Advocate General, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the story of the prosecution is full of lacunae and there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which render the prosecution story doubtful and full of suspicions, thus no interference in the judgment of acquittal is called for. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we have gone through the record carefully. 8. PW-1, Dr. Anju Viz, deposed that on 22.11.2005 she medically examined the prosecutrix. She observed as under: “Labia minora & majora blood stained of menstruation. No injury marks seen. No semen stains seen on external genitalia and pubic hair. Hymen not intact, no bleeding and no inflammation seen at hymen site. Introitus admits two fingers easily. Vagina healthy. No injury or lacerations see. Cervix nulliparous and healthy. Patient menstruating. Uterus nulliparous. Swabs taken from cervix and vagina or posterior fornix. Pubic hair also sent.” This witness has further deposed that on 25.04.2006, she, on receipt of FSL report, gave her final opinion wherein she found no evidence qua sexual intercourse. She has deposed that the prosecutrix was referred to her from Palampur for gyne opinion. 9. PW-2, Dr. Jaidesh Rana, deposed that on 22.11.2005, around 1:30 a.m., he examined the prosecutrix and observed as under: “(i) abrasion 1x1cm on right side of the forehead. (ii) abrasion 1x1 cm on left side of the forehead. (iii) abrasion on the bride of the nose 1x1 cm. 9. PW-2, Dr. Jaidesh Rana, deposed that on 22.11.2005, around 1:30 a.m., he examined the prosecutrix and observed as under: “(i) abrasion 1x1cm on right side of the forehead. (ii) abrasion 1x1 cm on left side of the forehead. (iii) abrasion on the bride of the nose 1x1 cm. (iv) bruise on the left eye 3x3 cm with swelling left temporal region. (v) abrasion on chin dark browny in colour 3x1 cm. (vi) abrasion on right supra clavicular region dark brown 3x1 cm. (vii) abrasion 2 cm wide and 11 cm long present on the neck extending from the right side of the neck and anteriourly to left side of the neck latterly.” This witness referred the prosecutrix for gynecologist opinion at RPGMC, Dharamshala. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries sustained by the prosecutrix were in the nature of scratches. As per this witness, the prosecutrix inquired from him about the cause of injuries. He has deposed that owing to injuries No. iv and vii, a person may become unconscious. He has further deposed that injury No. vii could happen if a person wears a chain of bigger size. 10. The testimony of PW-3 (prosecutrix) is vital in the case in hand. She has deposed that on 21.11.2005, around 10:00 a.m., she alongwith her friend Daya, went to Ration Depot, Malli. When they were returning from the depot, and were crossing the forest, they saw the accused lying down in a nallah. The accused, after seeing them, got up and started pulling her clothes. As per the prosecutrix, she started crying and accused pulled her dupatta and tried to strangulate her. He took the prosecutrix to a nallah and the prosecutrix tried to escape. She sustained injuries on her neck as her dupatta got entangled around her neck. She also sustained injuries on her head and face. Thereafter, the accused committed rape on her and when she regained consciousness, she felt pain on her body and private parts. The accused had also filled her mouth with papers. She has further deposed that her mother, alongwith some boys of her village, took her to her house. The prosecutrix has further deposed that when she lodged the report, she was under the impression that name of the accused is Surinder, however, later on his actual name was known as Sanjeev Kumar. She has further deposed that her mother, alongwith some boys of her village, took her to her house. The prosecutrix has further deposed that when she lodged the report, she was under the impression that name of the accused is Surinder, however, later on his actual name was known as Sanjeev Kumar. The prosecutrix knew the accused, as he had once come to her house with her brother. The prosecutrix had also seen the accused twice/thrice in the market. She was shifted to hospital by her father and police visited the hospital, recorded her statement, Ex. PW-3/A, which was signed by the prosecutrix. She was medically examined in SDH, Palampur and at Dharamshala. As per the prosecutrix, on subsequent morning, i.e. 22.11.2005, she gave her statement to the police. On 24th November police, at her instance, took into possession her kameez (shirt) and salwar, vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-3/B, which bears her signatures. Roop Lal and Bhagat Singh were also present there at the time of recovery. The prosecutrix has further deposed that when their scuffle started, Daya ran way from there and the scuffle lasted for ten minutes. The prosecutrix, in her cross-examination, has deposed that villagers use the same passage, through which they were returning. The accused was lying amidst the passage and the time was around 12:00/12:30 p.m. She was carrying 12 kgs wheat and approximately 5 kgs sugar. She has further deposed, in her cross-examination, that when the accused started pulling her clothes, wheat and sugar fell down. She did not remember when she was taken to her house. The prosecutrix tried to ran away, however, accused overpowered her. He pulled her dupatta and tied the same around her neck. She was taken to her home and then to the hospital. Her brother gave the mobile number of the accused to the police. She has further deposed that firstly the accused tried to rape her and when she became unconscious, he raped her in unconscious state. She regained consciousness in her house. The prosecutrix, in her cross-examination has deposed that when the accused came to their house, he disclosed to her family members that he is a Captain in the Army. 11. PW-4, Dr. R.K. Ahluwalia, deposed that on 29.01.2006 he medically examined the accused and found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. She regained consciousness in her house. The prosecutrix, in her cross-examination has deposed that when the accused came to their house, he disclosed to her family members that he is a Captain in the Army. 11. PW-4, Dr. R.K. Ahluwalia, deposed that on 29.01.2006 he medically examined the accused and found him capable of performing sexual intercourse. He preserved the underwear of the accused and sent the same for chemical examination. PW-5, Rani Devi, who is mother of the prosecutrix, deposed that on 21.11.2005 her daughter, around 12:00 noon, went to Malli for bringing ration from the depot. She got baffled when her daughter did not return till 4:00 p.m. and went to the house of Daya. On inquiry, Daya told her that accused met the prosecutrix and started quarreling with her. He also asked the prosecutrix to marry her, but she refused. PW-5 has further deposed that she went to the spot alone and found the prosecutrix unconscious in the nallah. There was a piece of paper in her mouth and dupatta was also tied around her neck. She found ration scattered on the spot and there were injury marks on the face and neck of the prosecutrix. She, with the help of Sanjay Kumar and Satpal, shifted the prosecutrix to her house. The prosecutrix regained consciousness after two hours and divulged to her that accused started scuffling with her and asked her to marry him. However, when she refused to marry him, he threatened to rape her. As per this witness, the prosecutrix was taken to hospital by her husband and police came on the spot on subsequent morning. Police seized dupatta and chappal, vide seizure memos Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-5/B, respectively, which were handed over to her. This witness, in her cross-examination, has deposed that she divulged to police what had been told to her by Daya (PW-17). She reached the spot around 4:15 p.m. and it takes approximately half an hour to reach Kunal Khola from her village. She reached there in 3/4 minutes and found one end of dupatta was tied around the neck of her daughter and the other end was tied with a tree. She has categorically deposed that she brought the dupatta to her house and she told to the police that dupatta had been brought by her. She reached there in 3/4 minutes and found one end of dupatta was tied around the neck of her daughter and the other end was tied with a tree. She has categorically deposed that she brought the dupatta to her house and she told to the police that dupatta had been brought by her. The accused was not called by them and her son (brother of the prosecutrix) did not know the accused. She disclosed to the police the number wherefrom the accused used to call her. She has further deposed that she did not remember when she reached Kunal Khola. As per this witness, dupatta was not seized by the police on the spot. When the prosecutrix vomited, papers came out of her mouth and the vomit was kept in a bottle. 12. PW-6, Shri Roop Lal, deposed that on 22.11.2005, he was associated by the police. PW-5, Rani Devi, handed over a pair of chappal, vide seizure memo Ex. PW-5/B, which was witnessed by him and Bhagat Ram. The bark of the tree, on which the dupatta was allegedly tied, was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-6/A. As per this witness, on 24.11.2005 the prosecutrix produced shirt and salwar, which are Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2, and the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.Pw-3/B. This witness, in his cross-examination has deposed that PW-5, Rani Devi, is his relative. When he went to the spot, dupatta was tied with the tree at approximately 5-6 or 4/4 1/2 feets’ height. PW-7, Kali Dass (father of the prosecutrix), deposed that on 21.11.2005 he had gone to Panchrukhi for work and returned around 7 p.m. His wife, Rani Devi (PW-5) narrated the entire incidence to him. This witness is a hearsay witness and he has deposed the story disclosed to him by his wife (PW-5). This witness in his cross-examination has deposed that the prosecutrix did not say anything in the hospital. 13. PW-8, Constable Lal Chand, deposed that on 02.05.2006 MHC Kehar Singh, vide RC No. 18/21, handed over him a sealed parcel, which he deposited in FSL, Junga, on the same day. He had handed over the receipt thereof to MHC and the said parcel was not tampered till the time it remained in his custody. 13. PW-8, Constable Lal Chand, deposed that on 02.05.2006 MHC Kehar Singh, vide RC No. 18/21, handed over him a sealed parcel, which he deposited in FSL, Junga, on the same day. He had handed over the receipt thereof to MHC and the said parcel was not tampered till the time it remained in his custody. PW-9, ASI Kehar Singh, deposed that on 24.11.2005 ASI Onkar deposited with him four parcels, which contained six seals of seal impression ‘T’, a parcel containing three seals of seal ‘ZH’ and a parcel containing four seals of seal ‘CHP’. This witness made an entry qua the parcels in the malkhana register. He has further deposed that on 05.02.2006, vide RC No. 18/21, he sent two parcels, containing seal ‘T’, a parcel containing seal ‘ZH’ and a parcel containing seal ‘CHP’, through constable Lal Chand to FSL, Junga, and receipt was handed over to him. As per this witness, the aforesaid case property remained entact under his custody and was not tampered with. PW-10, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sanjeev Chauhan, deposed that he prepared the challan and on receipt of reports, Ex. PX and PY, from Forensic Science Laboratory, he prepared supplementary challan. PW-11 has signed the FIR. 14. PW-12, SI Onkar Singh, deposed that on 22.11.2006 MHC, Police Station Palampur, received information that a girl has been admitted, in an injured condition, in Palampur Hospital. He, alongwith other police personnel, went to the hospital. He moved application, Ex. PW-12/A, before Medical Officer, Palampur, for recording the statement of the prosecutrix and for her medico legal certificate. The doctor gave his consent for recording the statement of the prosecutrix, vide endorsement, Ex. PW-12/B, and he recorded her statement, Ex. PW-3/A. He sent the rukka, through Constable Gopal, for registration of FIR. He prepared the spot map, Ex. PW-12/D. This witness has categorically stated that mother of the prosecutrix, Rani Devi (PW-5), in presence of Roop Lal and Bhagat Ram, produced a dupatta and a chappal, which was taken into possession vide seizure memos, Ex. PW-5/B and PW-5/A, respectively, and the memos bear the signatures of PW-5 and the aforesaid witnesses. He also took into possession bark of the tree, Ex. P5, vide recovery memo, Ex. PW-5/B and PW-5/A, respectively, and the memos bear the signatures of PW-5 and the aforesaid witnesses. He also took into possession bark of the tree, Ex. P5, vide recovery memo, Ex. PW-6/A. Aforesaid dupatta, chappal and bark were sealed in three parcels with six seals of seal having impression ‘T’ and the sample seal was handed over to witness Bhagat Ram. Facsimile seal was also taken on separate piece of cloth, which is Ex. PW-12/E. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. As per this witness, on 24.11.2005, in presence of Roop Lal and Bhagat Ram, the prosecutrix produced a shirt, Ex. P-1, and a salwar, Ex. P2, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PW-3/B. He sealed the aforesaid clothes in a parcel and sealed the same with seal impression ‘T’ and facsimile seal was handed over to Bhagat Ram. As per his version, he recorded the statements of Sanjay, Daya and Rani Devi, which are Ex. PW-12/F, Ex. PW-12/G and Ex. PW-12/H, respectively. This witness, in his cross-examination, stated that he did not take into possession record of the ration depot, however, he recorded the statement of salesman of the ration depot (PW-14, Ram Saran). He has admitted that he did not take into possession sugar and flour, which was scattered on the spot. 15. PW-13, Naresh Kumar (brother of the prosecutrix), deposed that on 21.11.2005 his sister went to Mali depot and when she did not return, he alongwith Sanjay and Deepak searched her. They found the prosecutrix in an unconscious state in Kunal Khola nallaha. The prosecutrix had sustained injuries on her back, eyes and neck. They brought her to their house and thereafter she was shifted to hospital. The prosecutrix told him that accused tried to rape and kill her. This witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that on that day he had returned from the school around 5 p.m. He has further deposed that they reached the nallaha around 6 p.m. As per this witness, the accused was not acquainted with him. The prosecutrix earlier disclosed the named of the accused as Surinder. PW-14, Ram Saran, salesman of Government Ration Depot, Malli, deposed that on 21.11.2005, around 11:00 a.m. the prosecutrix and Daya Devi came to the depot and they returned after purchasing ration. On the subsequent day, he came to know that the accused attempted to rape the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix earlier disclosed the named of the accused as Surinder. PW-14, Ram Saran, salesman of Government Ration Depot, Malli, deposed that on 21.11.2005, around 11:00 a.m. the prosecutrix and Daya Devi came to the depot and they returned after purchasing ration. On the subsequent day, he came to know that the accused attempted to rape the prosecutrix. PW-15, Sanjay Kumar, who was doing labour work in Village Ghar Chindi, deposed that on 21.11.2005 PW-5, Rani Devi, came and divulged the incident to him. He accompanied her and found the prosecutrix in an injured condition at Kunal Khola. She was shifted to her house and than to the hospital. She could not reveal that how she sustained injuries. This witness, in his cross-examination, denied that he gave statement to the police that accused Sanjeev used to meet the prosecutrix and he committed the offence. He has also denied that accused Sanjeev is known to him. 16. PW-16, Satpal, deposed that on 21.11.2005 PW-5, Rani Devi, came to him and narrated the occurrence. Thereafter, they found the prosecutrix in an unconscious and injured condition in Kunal Khola. She was firstly brought to her house and subsequently shifted to hospital. Later on, he came to know that accused Sanjeev thrashed and molested the prosecutrix. 17. PW-17, Daya Devi, is a key witness in this case, as she was with the prosecutrix when the accused met them. As per her version, on 21.11.2005 she alongwith the prosecutrix went to Malli for bringing ration. They reached the depot at 11:30 a.m. and returned therefrom at 12:30 p.m. A boy met them and the prosecutrix started talking with him. This witness, while deposing in the Court, did not identify that boy. She has categorically stated that mother of the prosecutrix (PW-5, Rani Devi) asked her to tell that the prosecutrix stayed with a boy. Subsequently, she came to know that the prosecutrix sustained injuries and was found at Kunal Khola. As per her version, when they were coming back from the depot, Manoj and Surinder met them. This witness, in her cross-examination, deposed that afterwards she came to know that Sanjeev (accused) thrashed the prosecutrix. She has further deposed that at 10:30 a.m. they started towards the depot and approximately it took an hour to reach there. They used the public path and while they were returning, Manoj and Surinder met them. 18. This witness, in her cross-examination, deposed that afterwards she came to know that Sanjeev (accused) thrashed the prosecutrix. She has further deposed that at 10:30 a.m. they started towards the depot and approximately it took an hour to reach there. They used the public path and while they were returning, Manoj and Surinder met them. 18. In the instant case, the identity of the accused Sanjeev has not been conclusively established. The prosecutrix, in her statement recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C., divulged that when they were coming back from the ration depot and at Kunal Khola, she found Surinder Kumar, son of Jagdish Chand, caste Rajput, lying on the path. Surinder Kumar, blocked their path and he caught hold of her and commited the crime. Thus, the prosecutrix clearly and unambiguously divulged the name of Surinder Kumar and also immaculately gave his other details. Thus, in the light of speckless details given by the prosecutrix, in her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. qua the identity of the accused, no allegations have been imputed against accused Sanjeev Kumar. The prosecutrix, while deposing in the Court, deposed that while lodging the report, she was under the impression that the name of the accused is Surinder and subsequently she came to know that real name of the accused is Sanjeev Kumar. The prosecutrix, in her testimony, has further deposed that she was already acquainted with the accused, as he had come to their house with her brother and she has also noticed him in the market twice or thrice. Thus, it can be safely held that the prosecutrix already knew the accused. Mistake qua wrongly mentioning the name of the accused by the prosecutrix is justifiable, but the prosecutrix also divulged the name of the father of the accused and his caste with precision and certainty. She has divulged that father’s name of accused is Jagdish and he belongs to Rajput caste, resident of Panchrukhi, however, father’s name of accused Sanjeev Kumar is Hans Raj, resident of Gharchindi and he is from different caste. This Court is of the view that the prosecutrix gave conflicting statements qua the identity of the accused, thus it cannot be held clearly that accused Sanjeev Kumar committed the crime in question. This Court is of the view that the prosecutrix gave conflicting statements qua the identity of the accused, thus it cannot be held clearly that accused Sanjeev Kumar committed the crime in question. When the identity of accused Sanjeev Kumar has not been established clearly, the case of the prosecution becomes weak, as sufficient doubt is created in the mind of the Court qua the identity of the accused. Thus, it is difficult to hold that the accused is the same person, who, on 21.11.2005, blocked the path of the prosecutrix, when she alongwith Daya (PW-17) was coming back from Ration Depot, Malli. When the identity of the accused has not been established and proved beyond the scope of reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted. So, there is no illegality committed by the learned Court below. 19. At the same point of time, the statement of PW-17, Daya Devi, is very vital, as she was with the prosecutrix when the accused met them. This witness, while appearing in the witness-box, has deposed that on 21.11.2005 when she alongwith the prosecutrix was coming from Malli ration depot, a boy met them. She did not know the name of that boy and she could not identify him. She has categorically stated that the prosecutrix started talking with him and she asked her to go. This witness was declared hostile and in her cross-examination she deposed that later on she came to know that Sanjeev Kumar thrashed the prosecutrix. This witness nowhere states that accused Sanjeev had met them, when they were coming from the depot. Thus, statement of this witness is not enough, especially when she specifically stated that she came to know about the accused subsequently. As per her version, the prosecutrix herself asked her to go and she (prosecutrix) started talking with the accused, in that event there is no question qua blocking of path by the accused. 20. PW-5, Rani Devi (mother of the prosecutrix) deposed that Daya Devi (PW-17) told her that accused had met the prosecutrix, asked her to marry him, but she refused and the accused started quarreling with the prosecutrix, whereas PW-17 did not utter these facts in her statement. Subsequently, PW-5 rushed to the spot and found the prosecutrix. There was a paper in her mouth and her dupatta was tied around her neck. Subsequently, PW-5 rushed to the spot and found the prosecutrix. There was a paper in her mouth and her dupatta was tied around her neck. The prosecutrix divulged to PW-5 that accused quarreled with her (prosecutrix) and also threatened to rape her, but the statement of the prosecutrix is in contrast to the statement of PW-5. The prosecutrix has specifically deposed that accused had raped her. As per the testimony of PW-7, Kali Dass (father of the prosecutrix) Daya Devi (PW-17) told him that accused Sanjeev injured his daughter, whereas the testimony of PW-17, Daya Devi, does not reflect that she divulged any facts to PW-7, Kali Dass (father of the prosecutrix). 21. As per the prosecution story, during the course of investigation, police took into possession chappal, Ex. P-3, and dupatta, Ex.P-4, through recovery memos, Ex. PW-5/A and Ex. PW-5/B, respectively, and this fact has been stated by PW-5, Rani Devi (mother of the prosecutrix). However, PW-5, Rani Devi, stated that dupatta was not taken into possession. Surprisingly, another witness of recovery, i.e., Roop Lal (PW-6) deposed that dupatta had been taken into possession by the police from the spot and the same was tied with a tree. As per this witness, dupatta was also measured in his presence. Thus, there are contradictions qua the recovery of dupatta. PW-12, Investigating Officer, S.I. Onkar Singh, has categorically deposed that mother of the prosecutrix produced a dupatta and the same was taken into possession by the police, vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-5/B, in presence of witnesses Roop Lal and Bhagat Ram. Thus, there is lot of variance qua the recovery of dupatta, which also renders the prosecution doubtful. 22. As per the prosecution story, when the alleged scuffle took place between the accused and the prosecutrix, ration carried by the prosecutrix scattered on the spot. However, the police had not recovered any ration from the spot and it is not the story of the prosecution that the prosecutrix handed over the ration to PW-17, Daya Devi, who was accompanying her. Now the story that the accused blocked the path of the prosecutrix at Kunal Khola, when she was coming from the ration depot becomes difficult to believe. PW-2, Dr. Jaidesh Rana, has deposed that when the prosecutrix was brought to him, she was conscious. 23. Now the story that the accused blocked the path of the prosecutrix at Kunal Khola, when she was coming from the ration depot becomes difficult to believe. PW-2, Dr. Jaidesh Rana, has deposed that when the prosecutrix was brought to him, she was conscious. 23. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and thus the accused cannot be held liable for the commission of the offence, as alleged by the prosecution. 24. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non-consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 26. In view of the above discussion, the inescapable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Thus, we are of the considered view that there is no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court, as such the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.