Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 644 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Lalabhai Ratnabhai Dhoalkia

2017-03-22

A.J.SHASTRI, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The State has filed present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) against the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2005 on 30th September, 2005, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent accused. 2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that one Dhanjibhai Bhurabhai Solanki, who was serving as Police Sub-Inspector at Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot City, received a telephonic vardhi from one Keshubhai Jadeja, Police Station Officer about the information that one dead body of unknown person is lying at Raiyadhara and therefore mobile No. 2 was sent, who later on confirmed that one male person's dead body is lying and requested the officers to go to the scene of offence and therefore the said Police Sub-Inspector Dhanjibhai went to the spot. From the persons who gathered over the site it was noticed that this this dead body was of one Ghughabhai Bharvad whose father is serving at Kesariyavadi, Kalavad Road and therefore one police officer was sent to call the relatives of the deceased along with police personnel. 2.1 It is further the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the said information, the brother of the deceased named as Kalubhai has identified the dead body and resultantly the complaint from Kalubhai came to be recorded by the Police Officer at the scene of offence itself and the same was registered as C.R. No. 80 of 2005 before Gandhigram Police Station, Rajkot for the offences under Sections 302 and 188 of the Indian Penal Code. 2.2 Pursuant to the said registration of the complaint, necessary steps have been taken by Investigating Officer by recording the statements of witnesses by drawing the panchnama of scene of offence, by drawing recovery panchnama and upon information even arrest panchnama also came to be drawn and ultimately after conclusion of entire investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed by Investigating Officer before the learned 4th Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot who then registered the same as Criminal Case No. 5673 of 2005. On perusal, the learned Magistrate having found that offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, in exercise of powers under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., the Sessions Case came to be registered and it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 85 of 2005. The said case came up for consideration before the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Fast Track Court, Rajkot who framed the charge at Exh. 5 against the respondent - accused and pursuant to the plea having been recorded of respondent accused at Exh. 6 and the denial of commission of offence by him the case was put up for further hearing. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the issued and the prosecution was given chance to prove the case by leading evidence. With a view to prove the case against the respondent-accused the prosecution has led evidence in following manner. ORAL EVIDENCE: Prosecution Witness Number Name of Prosecution Witnesses Exhibit 1 Dr. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the issued and the prosecution was given chance to prove the case by leading evidence. With a view to prove the case against the respondent-accused the prosecution has led evidence in following manner. ORAL EVIDENCE: Prosecution Witness Number Name of Prosecution Witnesses Exhibit 1 Dr. Mukeshbhai Jethalal Upadhyay Medical Officer 9 2 Nikhil Kamlashankar Rindani 17 3 Nathabhai Mohanbhai 20 4 Somabhai Govindbhai Pithwa 21 5 Darshanbhai Jivrajbhai Patel 22 6 Bharatbhai Nathabhai Chavda 23 7 Liluben Chhelabhai 24 8 Dhanjibhai Bhurabhai Solanki 25 9 Dhirajlal Ratilal Kanabar 35 10 Shivrajbhai Kathadbhai 37 11 Haresh Mathurdas Maheta 39 12 Dilipsinh Pathubha 47 13 Kalubhjai Lakhubhai 48-49 14 Lakhubhai Bhagvanbhai 50 15 Jigabhai Lakhubhai 51 16 Harisinh Jethabhai Jankant, PI 52 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: S. No. Particulars of Documentary Evidence Exhibit 1 P.M. Note 10 2 Death Form 11 3 Cause of Death Certificate 12 4 Yadi sent by Investigating Officer to the Medical Officer for postmortem 13 5 Letter regarding sending of blood sample 14 6 Letter of Medical Officer to PI Gandhigram Police Station for sending blood and viscera for analysis to the FSL Department 15 & 16 7 Letter of Circle Officer to Investigating Officer for preparing map of local place 18 8 Sketch of place of offence 19 9 Letter of PSO K.P. Jadeja to Investigating PI D.D. Solanki 26 10 Forwarding letter for deputy order along with the Complaint 27 11 Complaint 28 12 Inquest Panchnama 29 13 Panchnama of local place 30 14 Panchnama regarding recovery of material/muddamal from the body of the deceased 31 15 Arrest Panchnama 32 16 Form for Dog Squad 33 17 Yadi Letter to Videographer, DCB, Rajkot 34 18 Discovery Panchnama 36 19 Discovery Panchnama 38 20 Offence Report 40 21 Receipt of handing over dead body 41 22 Report regarding collection of material from the dead body of Ghughabhai Lakhubhai Bharvad 42 23 Entry regarding handing over the muddamal 43 24 Entry regarding Janva Jog Entry No. 126/05 44 25 Entry regarding Station Diary Note 8/ 05 45 26 Letter regarding intimation of arrest of accused at Gadhigram Police Station 46 27 Sanction Letter for arrest of the accused 53 28 Arrest Memo 54 29 Report regarding blood sample to Medical Officer 55 30 Report regarding custody of the accused 56 31 Report regarding remand of the accused 57 32 Report regarding custody of the accused 58 33 Letter to the FSL 59 34 Report regarding collection of blood sample of the accused 60 35 Receipt regarding sending and receipt of muddamal for analysis 62 36 Report regarding collection of blood sample of the deceased 61 37 Report regarding collection of blood sample of the deceased 63 38 FSL Report 64 39 Report regarding breach of condition of bail by the accused 65 40 FSL Report 66 41 Report regarding muddamal 67 42 Five photographs of deceased 68 43 Letter to FSL 69 44 Surgical Report received from FSL 70 45 Closing pursis submitted by Assistant Public Prosecutor 71 2.3 After adducing the evidence in the aforesaid form, the prosecution has given closer pursis and thereafter with a view to given opportunity to the respondent, a further statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and since the respondent - accused has denied the offence being committed, the case was put up for final adjudication. 3. The prosecution with an aid and assistance of the witnesses and the documentary material stated hereinbefore has made an attempt to establish case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, however, after examining the detailed evidence led before it, the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Fast Track Court, Rajkot, vide judgment and order dated 30th September, 2005 was pleased to pass an order of acquittal by exercising jurisdiction under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. from the charges for which the respondent - accused was tried. It is this judgment and order which is impugned subject matter of present Criminal Appeal which has been taken up for final disposal. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Punani appearing for the State has vehemently contended that a serious error is committed by the learned Trial Judge in passing of order of acquittal. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that by adducing the cogent evidence on record and documentary evidence case has been established beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent and therefore a serious error of jurisdiction is committed by the learned Trial Judge. Ms. Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the evidence as a whole, the entire case seems to be based on circumstantial evidence but then the prosecution by leading evidence has completed the entire chain of circumstances against the respondent - accused and therefore when such an attempt is made by the prosecution it was the duty on the part of learned Trial Judge to examine the evidence in its true perspective. Having not done so a clear non-application of mind is reflecting from bare reading of the judgment and order. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Punani has further submitted that testimony of Medical Officer particularly his entire deposition in co-relation with the charge and the scene of offence panchnama a clear link is established against the respondent - accused. Having not done so a clear non-application of mind is reflecting from bare reading of the judgment and order. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Punani has further submitted that testimony of Medical Officer particularly his entire deposition in co-relation with the charge and the scene of offence panchnama a clear link is established against the respondent - accused. The prosecution with a view to establish the case has also drawn the map which has been proved by the testimony of Circle Inspector who was examined as Prosecution Witness and therefore, simply because some of the witnesses have turned hostile it is not open for the learned Trial Judge to ignore such strong piece of evidence which establishes the link against the respondent - accused and therefore the learned Trial Judge has clearly misconstrued the evidence on record and therefore such an error of jurisdiction deserves to be corrected by quashing and setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge. 6. In additional to that, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has then submitted that reasons which are assigned by the learned Trial Judge are not sufficient enough to justify the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge. On the contrary, the laconic order is passed by the learned Trial Judge overwhelming the evidence led before the learned Trial Judge and therefore this being a serious error in exercise of jurisdiction the order deserves to be corrected. No other submissions have been made and it is requested that since there appears to be a clear perversity and legal infirmity from bare reading of judgment, the appeal filed by the State deserves to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and order impugned in it. 7. To oppose the stand taken by the learned advocate Mr. Apurva K. Jani for Mr. Ashish Dagli, learned advocate for the respondent accused has strongly supported the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge. Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has contended that the reasons which are assigned by the learned Trial Judge are perfectly in consonance with the evidence on record and therefore there seems to be no infirmity of grave nature which could be said to be a miscarriage of justice and therefore Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has contended that there appears to be no error committed by the learned Trial Judge. Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has contended that there appears to be no error committed by the learned Trial Judge. Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has further contended that the present case is solely based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness at all and therefore the law requires that if the case is based upon circumstantial evidence then entire chain of circumstances is required to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and here in the absence of any such corroborative material connecting and completing the chain of circumstances it cannot be said that any error is committed by the learned Trial Judge. Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has further contended that on the contrary the panchas have turned hostile and no witnesses who have been examined are supporting the case of prosecution. With a view to justify his contention Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has taken us to various testimonies of witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution and from the version of one Mr. Nathabhai Mohanbhai who was examined at Exh. 3 who can be said to be a material witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Same is the case that one another witness examined by Prosecution named Somabhai Govidnbhai as Prosecution Witness No. 4, who is examined at Exh. 21, has also not supported the case of prosecution and therefore from the testimony of witnesses who are pressed into service by prosecution nothing curled out to justify the guilty of respondent accused. Even apart from this, other witnesses named as Darshanbhai Jivrajbhai Patel (Exh. 23) as well as Bhartbhai Nathabhai (Exh. 23) have also turned hostile and have clearly not supported the case of the prosecution. In furtherance of the attempt on the part of prosecution to somehow establish the guilt of respondent - accused, even sister of the accused Liluben Chhilubhai (Exh. 24) has also been examined but she also has not obviously supported the case of the prosecution and therefore from the reading of evidence as a whole no case is made out against the respondent -accused so cogently which would permit the Court to dislodge the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned Trial Judge. 8. Mr. 24) has also been examined but she also has not obviously supported the case of the prosecution and therefore from the reading of evidence as a whole no case is made out against the respondent -accused so cogently which would permit the Court to dislodge the findings of acquittal arrived at by the learned Trial Judge. 8. Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has further contended that the sum and substance of the material would clearly indicate that not only witnesses are not supporting the case of prosecution but even medical examination and the evidence is also not supporting the case in any form. The recovery of knife which has been tried to be established against the respondent accused, the discovery of the said weapon has not been established as panchas have not supported even the panchnama and from serological report blood which is said to have been found from the knife is also not cogent enough circumstance to prove the case against the respondent - accused. On the contrary, the bloodstained stated to have been found on knife. The other incriminating circumstance has not been put up to the accused by way of opportunity to defend in further statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore the totality of the circumstance prevailing on record is clearly indicative of the fact that prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has ultimately contended that in absence of any material available against respondent accused as is required in the strict form there appears to be no legal infirmity in passing the order of acquittal by the learned Trial Judge. Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has ultimately contended that in absence of any material available against respondent accused as is required in the strict form there appears to be no legal infirmity in passing the order of acquittal by the learned Trial Judge. Mr. Apurva Jani, learned advocate has therefore contended that the cardinal principle of exercising appellate jurisdiction and dealing with an appeal against the order of acquittal that if any plausible view is possible then the same may not be substituted in place of view taken by the trial Court for the simple reason that trial Court had an opportunity to see the demeanor of witnesses and therefore when the trial Court has dealt with a particular evidence which is reflecting another possible view the same cannot be substituted and therefore the entire background of fact is such where it is not possible to take another view from that of view expressed by the learned Trial Judge and therefore considering this as ultimate request/prayer is made by learned advocate for the respondent accused to dismiss the appeal filed by the State. 9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the reasons which are assigned by the learned Trial Judge and upon independent analysis of evidence on record few things which are required to be noticed are not possible to be ignored by this Court i.e. (i) it is undisputed that entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence and the law requires that the prosecution has to establish case beyond reasonable doubt each chain of circumstance to connect the accused with offence and therefore looking to the entire material on record when the witnesses are not supporting the case in any form, it appears that circumstances are not cogent enough to reverse the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, (ii) another element which is also not possible to un-notice is that the injuries which are reflected on the body of deceased are not possible to be inflicted by the knife which has been recovered. If the testimony of Medical Officer in consonance with the injuries which are reflected during post mortem examination, these injuries are stated to be of a sharp cutting from both end and there is clear opinion of Medical Officer Dr. Mukesh Upadhyay who has been examined as Prosecution Witness No. 1 at Exh. If the testimony of Medical Officer in consonance with the injuries which are reflected during post mortem examination, these injuries are stated to be of a sharp cutting from both end and there is clear opinion of Medical Officer Dr. Mukesh Upadhyay who has been examined as Prosecution Witness No. 1 at Exh. 9 that the injuries which are reflected in the body are possible only by a weapon having two sides sharp edges. Now this clear medical opinion co-relating with the injuries which are shown in the inquest panchnama as well as postmortem examination if can be viewed from weapon which has been recovered the weapon is stated to be having only one sharp edge and not sharp edges on the blade on the weapon and therefore this very circumstance which is touching the root of controversy even is not established by the prosecution which is clearly visible from the aforesaid material. 10. Yet another circumstance which is reflecting that the recovery of weapon i.e. knife is at the behest of the accused person but then the said discovery has not been established as is rightly stipulated under Section 27 of Evidence Act and therefore discovery of weapon itself is a seriously questionable circumstance and apart from the fact that in serological report it has been stated that blood has been found on the knife but then said blood is of which character is not clearly spelt out but then again the said incriminating circumstance is not put up for defense to the accused during the course of trial while recording further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore these are the issues which are not possible to be ignored by this Court as is clearly visible from the entire material on record. 11. Another circumstance is that the motive of the crime has not been established in the case. Of course, in a case like this irrespective of establishment of motive the Court can evaluate the evidence on record but then establishment of motive is also one of the relevant circumstance which could not be ignored as well more particularly in view of the material which has been led by prosecution in the case on hand and therefore the motive has also not been established by prosecution. 12. 12. With a view to assess the order of the trial Court whether it is just or not the Court has also independently examined at length the entire evidence led before it but then the weapon which has been found as knife, which stated to have been used in commission of crime is not the knife and apart from the fact that blood is found which has also not been established but further analysis that on hand the fingerprints of respondent accused are possible is also completely missing out and therefore entire analysis of evidence on record is clearly suggesting that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Yet another angle also the Court has taken up the examination and analysis of evidence as to whether any 'last seen together' evidence is available or not and from that point of view also the statement of witnesses and the testimony thereof are not connecting the link of respondent accused even on this theory of 'last seen together'. A specific conclusion is derived by the learned trial Judge from the testimony of Investigating Officer Harisinh Jethabhai Jankant examined at Exh. 52 and therefore it appears that even from the testimony of Investigating Officer also nothing much curled out which would suggest that any strong possible view is visible from the record. 14. The aforesaid circumstances are clearly appear to have been considered by the learned Trial Judge and thereafter the conclusion appears to have been arrived at and we see no reason justifiable enough to distinguish ourselves from taking another view then what has been taken by learned Trial Judge. 15. 14. The aforesaid circumstances are clearly appear to have been considered by the learned Trial Judge and thereafter the conclusion appears to have been arrived at and we see no reason justifiable enough to distinguish ourselves from taking another view then what has been taken by learned Trial Judge. 15. We are mindful of the fact that the appellate jurisdiction is vide enough to reassess the entire evidence to find out the truth whether order passed by the learned Trial Judge is perverse, suffers from any legal infirmity or results in miscarriage of justice but then by applying all principles of exercising appellate jurisdiction we are of the considered opinion that no justifiable feature is available which can permit us to hold that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge is not only perverse and suffers from legal infirmity but results in miscarriage of justice as well and therefore in the absence of these circumstances having not been visible from the record we are of the opinion that the settled principles of law propounded by catena of decisions delivered by the Apex Court we are unable to exercise our discretion to dislodge the view taken by the learned Trial Judge. Following decisions are profitable for the Court to consider and justify the conclusion to deliver the present order and the said principles propounding on the issue of exercise of appellate jurisdiction are worth to be quoted hereinafter. "16.1 In the decision delivered by the Supreme Court in case of Sureshkumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 16 SCC 353 , it was observed that if two views are possible, the High Court should hold in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an order of acquittal. The relevant observations of the decision are reflected in Para 55, 56 and 57 which read as under: 55. The second contention is that the High Court ought not to have interfered in the acquittal by the Trial Court. It was submitted that if two views are possible, the High Court should lean in favour of the accused and should not interfere with an acquittal. 56. A few years ago, the law on the subject was culled out from a large number of decisions and summed up in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450 : AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1318 : 2008 AIR SCW 6598, as follows: "1. 56. A few years ago, the law on the subject was culled out from a large number of decisions and summed up in Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450 : AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1318 : 2008 AIR SCW 6598, as follows: "1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice; (iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive." 57. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive." 57. Learned counsel for Suresh Kumar referred to S. Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka, (2013) 7 SCC 219 : 2013 AIR SCW 6180, particularly paragraph 14 of the Report wherein reliance was placed on Rohtash v. State of Haryana, (2012) 6 SCC 589 : AIR 2012 SC 2297 : 2012 AIR SCW 3318 to conclude that it is "only in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and where the judgment in appeal is found to be perverse, can the High Court interfere with the order of acquittal." In Rohtash it was further observed: "The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference. (Vide State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC 666 : AIR 2011 SC 2271 : 2011 AIR SCW 3889 and Govindaraju v. State, (2012) 4 SCC 722 : AIR 2012 SC 1292 : 2012 AIR SCW 1994. 16.2 In yet another decision in the case of Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Karnataka, 2014 (9) SCC 365 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced and the one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it should not be disturbed as observed in paragraph Nos. 30 and 31. 16.3 In the case of Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa, 2015 (5) Scale 634 , it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that when there are two views culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. Paragraph No. 10 of the said decision reads thus: 10. Taking the First question for consideration, we are of the view that in case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. It has been recognized as a human right by this Court. Taking the First question for consideration, we are of the view that in case there are two views which can be culled out from the perusal of evidence and application of law, the view which favours the accused should be taken. It has been recognized as a human right by this Court. In Narendra Singh and another v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699 : AIR 2004 SC 3249 , this Court has recognized presumption of innocence as a human right and has gone on to say that: "30. It is now well settled that benefit of doubt belonged to the accused. It is further trite that suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take place of a proof. It is equally well settled that there is a long distance between may be and must be. 31. It is also well known that even in a case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution. Presumption of innocence is a human right. Such presumption gets stronger when a judgment of acquittal is passed. This Court in a number of decisions has set out the legal principle for reversing the judgment of acquittal by a Higher Court (See Dhanna v. State of M.P., Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana and Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.) which had not been adhered to by the High Court. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 33. We, thus, having regard to the postmortem report, are of the opinion that the cause of death of Bimla Bai although is shrouded in mistery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld. 16.4 The decision taken by the Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa v. State, 2016 AIR (SC) 2045, wherein the apex Court in paragraph No. 21 observed thus: 21. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. If the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible. Merely because the appellate court on re- appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. In State through Inspector of Police, A.P. v. K. Narasimhachary, (2005) 8 SCC 364 , this Court reiterated the well settled principle that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal by the lower court and that only where the material on record leads to an inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court. The same view was reiterated in T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. (2006) 1 SCC 401 ." 16. From the aforesaid position prevailing on record and our anxious consideration to entire evidence on record it does not permit us to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge and therefore keeping in view the propositions of law and upon analysis of the evidence we are of the considered opinion that order passed by the learned Trial Judge does not suffer from any perversity or any legal infirmity or not resulting in miscarriage of justice and therefore the respondent - accused has got benefit of re-enforcement of innocence by virtue of the order passed by the learned Trial Judge and therefore we deem it proper to dismiss the State appeal having no merits and accordingly the same is dismissed by confirming the judgment and order passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Fast Track Court, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2005 on 30th September, 2005. 17. The present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal, dated 30.09.2005, passed in Sessions Case No. 85 of 2005, by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Fast Track Court, Rajkot, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Appeal Dismissed.