Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 751 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Amarshi Khodabhai

2017-04-06

A.J.SHASTRI, S.R.BRAHMBHATT

body2017
JUDGMENT : A.J. Shastri, J. 1. The State has filed the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.', for short) feeling aggrieved by judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1990. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 09.04.1990 at about 12:15 p.m. the respondents accused, in connivance with each other, armed with deadly weapons like sward, knife etc. have attacked the deceased Popatbhai Nanjibhai Vaghri and intentionally caused his death and thereby committed offences under Section 302, 324 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short). The offence was originally registered against four accused persons viz. (i) Prabhat Bhanabhai, (ii) Amarshi Khodabhai, (iii) Laxmi @ Lakhuben W/o. Bhanabhai and (iv) Virji @ Bhanu s/o. Shardulbhai. During the course of proceedings, the original accused Nos. 1 and 3 viz. Prabhat Bhanabhai and Laxmi @ Lakhuben W/o. Bhanabhai have died and therefore the proceedings got abated qua those accused persons and as such the case was tried against left out accused original accused Nos. 2 and 4 viz. Amarshi Khodabhai and Virji @ Bhanu s/o. Shardulbhai respectively. On the premise as aforesaid, by specifically asserting that keeping in mind the earlier episode the respondents accused armed with deadly weapons have attacked wherein original accused No. 1 Prabhat Bhana armed with sward had given two sward blows on head of deceased whereas original accused No. 2 Amarshi armed with knife has given knife blows on the right-hand side fingers and also on the leg whereas original accused No. 3 Lakhuben, who died, had caught hold of the father of the complainant - deceased and this has occurred on account of past incident and that motive was alleged whereby the complaint came to be filed for incident in question in which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Resultantly, the daughter of the deceased named as Muktaben, who happened to be the wife of Mansukh Bhalabhai, had lodged the complaint before 'B' Division Police Station against all the respondents accused by naming and by giving specific attribution. Resultantly, the daughter of the deceased named as Muktaben, who happened to be the wife of Mansukh Bhalabhai, had lodged the complaint before 'B' Division Police Station against all the respondents accused by naming and by giving specific attribution. The complaint appears to have been investigated by the Investigating Officer who during the course of investigation has collected materials against the respondents as also executed panchnama of clothes seized of injured Popatbhai and witness Paruben, as also recorded statements of relevant witnesses and after death of Popatbhai the inquest panchnama also came to be drawn and dead-body was sent for postmortem examination. While conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer has also drawn panchnama of scene of offence, has collected necessary samples for analysis, control sand came to be recovered and then sent to FSL for examination. During the course of investigation, further discovery panchnama also came to be drawn as the accused persons voluntarily surrendered their weapons which were used in crime i.e. sward and knife, the arrest panchnama also came to be drawn and after conducting all steps the recovered muddamal also sent for analysis before FSL and after collecting the report and after taking necessary medical papers since the case has been found against the respondents accused after conducting day to day even Test Identification Parade before Mamlatdar a detailed charge-sheet came to be filed before the learned Magistrate. 3. Pursuant to the submission of charge-sheet, papers indicate that since offence in question is triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions which has come up for consideration before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot who registered the case as Sessions Case No. 47 of 1990. The records further indicate that after committal case to the Sessions Court, a specific charge came to be framed at Exh. 1 and the charge having been read over to the accused persons and making them understand, the accused persons have denied the offence being committed and after recording the plea of respondents accused the case was put up for further trial. 1 and the charge having been read over to the accused persons and making them understand, the accused persons have denied the offence being committed and after recording the plea of respondents accused the case was put up for further trial. With a view to prove the case against the respondents accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses and 16 documentary material to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and after leading the evidence a closer purshis came to be given by the prosecution pursuant to which further statements of accused respondents came to be recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In further statements, the respondents accused have denied the offences being committed. ORAL EVIDENCE:- Prosecution Witness Number Name of Prosecution Witnesses Exh. 1 Panch Witness Pravin Raisingbhai Koli 25 2 Panch Witness Amadbhai Osmanbhai 27 3 Complainant Muktaben Popatbhai 29 4 Panch Witness Nathabhai Popatbhai 44 5 Panch Witness Habibbhai Husenbhai Sumra 46 6 Panch Witness Govindbhai Nathubhai 47 7 Panch Witness Pravin Bhupatsinh Parmar 50 8 Panch Witness Narendrabhai Gokalbhai 52 9 Panch Witness Shantilal Chhaganlal 54 10 Panch Witness Zalabhai Narshibhai 56 11 Panch Witness Raidhanbhai Valjibhai 58 12 Witness Paruben Rameshbhai 60 13 Panch Witness Naranbhai Bhayabhai 67 14 Panch Witness Abdulbhai Kasambhai 69 15 Dr. Ashok Sukhlal Mehta 70 16 Dr.Rajendra Shantilal Pandya 73 17 Dr.Ramprasad Rasiklal Agravat 74 18 Witness Gavuben Kishorbhai 79 19 Witness Pragmalbhai Bhagvanjibhai Rathod 80 20 Witness Husen Abdulbhai Modi 83 21 Panch Witness Hasmukhbhai Sevadas Kapdi 84 22 Investigating Officer Chimanlal Trikamlal Sonara 86 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:- Sr. No. Particulars of Documentary Evidence Exh. 1 Body inquest panchnama 26 2 Cloth recovery panchnama 28 3 Complaint 30 4 Panchnama of local place 45 5 Panchnama of arrest of the accused 48 6 Identification Parade Panchnama 51 7 Panchnama of recovery of muddamal weapons and clothes 53 8 Inquest Panchnama 57 9 Panchnama of clothes of deceased Popatbhai 59 10 Yadi sent for postmortem of dead body 75 11 Panchnama of Identification Parde 81 12 Yadi for Identification Parade 82 13 Panchnama of discovery of weapons by the accused 90 14 Letter sent to FLS for muddamal 92 15 FSL Report 93 16 Depute Order for investigation 94 4. The case was put up for further adjudication wherein the learned Sessions Judge framed the issues for consideration and adjudication and after hearing at length, after examining material on record, since the learned Judge has found that prosecution has not been able to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents accused by judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 learned Sessions Judge was pleased to exercise jurisdiction under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. whereby all the respondents accused came to be acquitted from the offences for which they have been tried and it is this judgment and order is made subject matter of present Criminal Appeal filed by the State. 5. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has vehemently contended that a clear error is committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in passing the order of acquittal and therefore such error being material in nature is required to be corrected by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment. Ms. Punani, learned APP has submitted that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt by examining as many as 22 witnesses and ample material in nature is adduced which has unequivocally suggested the guilt of the respondents accused and this cogent material ought not to have been ignored by learned Judge while dealing with in its proper perception. While analyzing evidence on record, there appears to be a clear error committed by learned Judge which reflects the non-application of mind which error is required to be corrected. Ms. Punani, learned APP submitted that it may be possible that panchas have not supported case of prosecution in its entirety by turning hostile but in view of settled proposition of law some evidence can be considered at all which proposition is not followed and therefore when the case is emerged against the respondents accused from testimony of even hostile witnesses a broad support has definitely plausible from the record which ought not to have been overlooked by the learned Judge. Ms. Punani, learned APP further taking us to various documentary evidences including the ocular evidence has contended that a serious attempt is made by the prosecution to establish the case and such attempt could not have been ignored and therefore simply because some of the witnesses are not supporting the case of prosecution no benefit could have been given. Ms. Punani, learned APP further taking us to various documentary evidences including the ocular evidence has contended that a serious attempt is made by the prosecution to establish the case and such attempt could not have been ignored and therefore simply because some of the witnesses are not supporting the case of prosecution no benefit could have been given. On the contrary, there appears to be a consistency in ocular evidence and medical evidence and if both the witnesses are to be co-related it is clearly emerged that case is made out by prosecution which ought not to have been taken so lightly. The medical evidence has clearly explained injuries which has been further corroborated by witnesses on record and more particularly some of the witnesses are not supporting then the Investigating Officer, in his deposition, has clearly established the material which otherwise have been supported by other witnesses. Therefore when the Investigating Officer has clearly taken care of testimony of hostile witnesses by proving the case this could not have been overlooked. Ms. Punani, learned APP has clearly suggested that eye-witnesses i.e. daughter of the complainant has clearly opined and attributed against the respondents and role played by them and she being an eye-witness and has remained consistent evidence could not have been overlooked. It has also been contended by learned APP that injuries which are reflected upon the deceased were, as per the medical evidence and medical opinion, sufficient enough to cause death and therefore manner in which deceased has pushed out from the rickshaw and thereby committed assault on him clearly suggest that it was specific intention to kill father of the complainant and this is supported by the fact that motive in the present case is established on account of past incident and therefore when the role of each of the accused is clearly emerging sufficiently from the evidence on record, it is hardly any justifiable reason available for the learned Judge to set free the respondents accused by passing the order of acquittal. Ms. Punani, learned APP has further contended that the testimony of injured eye witnesses must have been given credence while considering and analysing evidence. Here learned Judge has clearly committed an error in ignoring the testimony of injured eye witnesses which under normal circumstances could not have been ignored. Ms. Punani, learned APP has submitted that the weapons have been recovered. Punani, learned APP has further contended that the testimony of injured eye witnesses must have been given credence while considering and analysing evidence. Here learned Judge has clearly committed an error in ignoring the testimony of injured eye witnesses which under normal circumstances could not have been ignored. Ms. Punani, learned APP has submitted that the weapons have been recovered. The panchnama of scene of offence is establishing the fact of occurrence and injured eye witnesses are establishing presence of the accused persons and when this entire evidence is corroborated by medical evidence there was hardly anything left for further consideration and therefore the order clearly reflects non-application of mind and the evidence has not been properly scanned by learned Judge which error is not required to be ignored. Ms. Punani has further contended that even if no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution but the fact remains that some of the witnesses who have been examined have already established their support to the case of the prosecution, the order passed by the learned judge appears to be clearly suffers from legal infirmity. While contending this, the learned APP has drawn our attention to various evidences including the testimony of Dr. Rajendra Shantilal Pandya, who was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 16 and the Mamlatdar viz. Pragmalbhai Bhagvanjibhai Rathod who was examined as Prosecution Witness No. 19. Ms. Punani, learned APP has further drawn our attention to evidence of one Chimanlal Trikamlal Sonara, Investigating Officer who stood as Prosecution Witness No. 22 whose testimony is reflecting at Exh. 86 and after referring these documents and the testimony of witnesses, Ms. Punani, learned APP has ultimately contended that there appears to be a clear error of jurisdiction which requires interference of this Court in appellate jurisdiction. Ms. Punani, learned APP has submitted that there is no blanket proposition of law that sitting in appeal over the order of acquittal, no different view can be taken and this is a fit case in which the appellate jurisdiction deserves to be exercised and by contenting this ultimately the request is made by learned APP to quash and set aside the impugned order and inflicted appropriate punishment upon the left out respondents accused persons and no other submissions were made. 6. To oppose the stand taken by counsel for the State, Mr. N.D. Gohil, learned advocate representing the accused Nos. 6. To oppose the stand taken by counsel for the State, Mr. N.D. Gohil, learned advocate representing the accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are original accused Nos. 2 and 4, has vehemently contended that no error is committed by learned judge in passing the order of acquittal. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate submitted that the documentary evidence is not inspiring any confidence. Not only that, but panch witnesses have chosen not to support the prosecution case and in addition thereto medical evidence available on record clearly rules out the theory of prosecution and therefore has contended that no error is committed by learned judge. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate has further contended that the motive which has been tried to be explained and established by prosecution is not emerging from the testimony of witnesses and the version of eye witnesses is not only not trustworthy but their presence has become doubtful looking to other material on record and therefore no trustworthy evidence is emerging from record which establishes the connectivity of respondents accused with actual commission of crime. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate has contended that not only the discovery panchnama of weapons has also not been proved, the serological examination is not supporting even the story of prosecution and therefore Mr. Gohil, learned advocate submitted that this is not a fit case in which any interference is called for. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate contended that Rickshaw-vala, whose testimony is reflected at page-248 can be said to be an independent witness but that witness has also not supported case of the prosecution. It is contended that Investigating Officer in the background of this fact ought to have taken care of to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt more particularly when the panchas have turned hostile. The discovery panchnama which is required to be established in view of Section 27 of the Evidence Act has not been proved in the manner in which law requires and injuries are not corroborating with medical evidence and the use of the weapons and therefore Mr. Gohil, learned advocate contended that this is not a fit case in which order of acquittal deserves to be interfered with. It has also been emerged from the record as per the say of Mr. Gohil, learned advocate contended that this is not a fit case in which order of acquittal deserves to be interfered with. It has also been emerged from the record as per the say of Mr. Gohil, learned advocate that two swards have been recovered but fact remains that there is no material to connect accused No. 4 to have utilised the sward and further the knife which is stated to have been used is not proved by the prosecution. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate has contended that prosecution has relied upon two witnesses stated to be an eye-witness but these witnesses are the relatives of deceased and Mr. Gohil, learned advocate has stated and candidly contended that no doubt related witnesses are to be relied upon but the same must have added corroboration which is completely missing in the present case. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate has contended that prosecution surprisingly has chosen not to examine independent witness Vinubhai Valand, in whose shops blood stains were found at the place of incident where the murder took place. The timings which are referred to about commission of crime are also at variance and therefore this raises serious doubt about the credence of the evidence. The station diary which is reflecting on paper-book compilation referring only three names but it is not cogently explained as to how at a subsequent point of time four persons came to be introduced and roped into prosecution and therefore this is nothing but a clear attempt of wrongly languishing the accused person in commission of crime. Mr. Gohil, learned advocate further contended that as per testimony of Muktaben Popatbhai - daughter of deceased and eye-witness P.W. No. 3 appears to have not present at the scene of occurrence. Had there been so, at the time of giving history the names could have been referred to or specific assertion could have been given in the history. The history is silent about it and therefore it clearly reflects that such history is not corroborating the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, there appears to be no explanation of injuries reflecting from any of the witnesses and therefore it is desirable in the interest of justice not to interfere with an order of acquittal. As contended by Mr. On the contrary, there appears to be no explanation of injuries reflecting from any of the witnesses and therefore it is desirable in the interest of justice not to interfere with an order of acquittal. As contended by Mr. Gohil, learned advocate has ultimately requested that two main accused have been passed away and the incident is of the year 1990, the chief examination has taken place in the month of May, 2005 and the cross examination has taken place in December, 2005. Such gape of examination of witnesses has also not strengthened the case of the prosecution. On the contrary, on account of such case appears to have been frustrated and therefore this being the case of no cogent evidence the same is rightly been appreciated by learned trial Judge in passing an order of acquittal and therefore by referring to such evidence and the material on record Mr. Gohil, learned advocate has contended that State Appeal has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record and having undertaken the comprehensive analysis in co-relation with conclusion arrived at by learned trial Judge, we are of the opinion that the case appears not to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt as can be seen from the evidence as a whole. The record indicates that station diary which is reflecting on page: 114 of paper-book compilation wherein the timing of occurrence has been noted down as 14:10 O'clock and the narration contained therein is reflecting something other than what has been narrated by the other witnesses to the incident whose testimonies are tried to be relied upon. The record further indicates that panchnama appears to have been drawn of the clothes of the deceased with the aid and assistance of panchas and one of the panchas named Pravin Raisingbhai Koli, Prosecution Witness No. 1, whose testimony is reflecting at Exh. 25, appears to have not supported the case of the prosecution and has categorically stated that panchnama has not been drawn in his presence and therefore the same has been declared hostile and therefore recovery of cloth panchnama is not appearing to have been established. The record further indicates that so far as Prosecution Witness No. 3 Muktaben Popatbhai is concerned, whose testimony is reflecting at Exh. The record further indicates that so far as Prosecution Witness No. 3 Muktaben Popatbhai is concerned, whose testimony is reflecting at Exh. 29 wherein incident is narrated that by keeping in mind the grudge over the earlier episode, on fateful day respondents - accused came and pushed out deceased Popatbhai in her presence wherein Prabhat Bhana, who was armed with sward, had inflicted sward blow on head of the deceased, Amarshibhai, who was having knife, had caused knife injury on leg and on the side of the deceased whereas Lakhuben, an accused who expired during the course of trial, had caught hold of the deceased. With a view to intercept and save the deceased, the complainant as well as Paruben - another witness appears to have sustained injuries. It has been asserted that though the complainant Muktaben - P.W. No. 3 has stated that Paruben sustained injuries on head, no medical evidence is supporting this fact. From the reading of cross-examination of this witness, it appears that names have been mentioned after due deliberation and not instantly. From the testimony of this witness, the presence of the accused persons is also doubtful as initially she stated that four accused were present, however, there was no reference of accused No. 4, and therefore trustworthiness and the credentiality of this witness is put to stake which has been rightly appreciated by the Court below. The specific role which has been attributed in the complaint is not getting corroboration by version of the witnesses. Complainant Muktaben has attributed Amarshi with knife who has stated to have caused injuries to the deceased whereas another Prosecution Witness No. 12 viz. Paruben has stated that Amarshi was armed with sward and not the knife. There appears to be inconsistency between the version of complainant and witness Paruben. This witness has further not referred to one unknown boy of Koli cast whereas the complainant Muktaben has made a reference and therefore it appears that on analysis of evidence of these two witnesses, there appears to be a conflict and consistency is missing. 8. The evidence further revealed that medical opinion is secured from one Dr. Rajendra Shantilal Pandya, who was examined at Exh. 73 as Prosecution Witness No. 16. 8. The evidence further revealed that medical opinion is secured from one Dr. Rajendra Shantilal Pandya, who was examined at Exh. 73 as Prosecution Witness No. 16. He has, no doubt, narrated his opinion upon postmortem examination and the dead body as in his cross examination he mentioned the cause of death on account of internal injuries on the head. Now this medical evidence if to be tallied with evidence of yet another Dr. Ramprasad Rasiklal Agravat, who has been examined at Exh. 76 as prosecution witness No. 17 has opined that at the time when patient was referred in the case history it has not been mentioned or briefed as to who caused the injuries and in what manner and therefore the medical officer, after verification of papers, have conveyed that no history was given when the deceased was taken to hospital. The prosecution has also examined one City Mamlatdar viz. Pragmalbhai Bhagwanjibhai Rathod, who is examined at Exh. 80 as prosecution witness No. 19, to indicate that Identification Parade was carried out to identify the accused but from his evidence no trustworthiness has come out whereby it can be cogently stated that the identification parade has held in its absolute form. The evidence as stated above revealed that Prosecution Witness No. 20 viz. Hussain Abdulbhai Modi, whose testimony is examined at Exh. 83, was rickshaw-wala, as stated earlier, has not supported the identification parade and nothing comes out so extra-ordinary which may lead to a conclusion that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence further if being dealt with the serological report appearing on page:287 of paper-book compilation, has no doubt reflected the blood group 'B' but then again the prosecution has not taken care further to establish that group analysis of the blood can connect the respondents accused with commission of crime and this is the state of affairs appearing on record of the present proceedings which has dragged us further to the conclusion which has been arrived at by learned trial Judge while passing the judgment impugned in the proceedings. 9. The careful and comprehensive analysis of evidence, as stated above, would lead to the conclusion that what has been established by the Court below is definitely a plausible view and no other different view is possible which may dislodge the view taken by the Court below. 9. The careful and comprehensive analysis of evidence, as stated above, would lead to the conclusion that what has been established by the Court below is definitely a plausible view and no other different view is possible which may dislodge the view taken by the Court below. The Court, while passing the order, has dealt with and examine each and every evidence at length, as also analyzed the documentary evidence in co-relation with the ocular evidence and after evaluating the ocular evidence, medical evidence and the documentary material adduced by the prosecution, a specific finding is arrived at that no case is made out beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents accused and since this conclusion is arrived at is in consonance with the material on record and upon examination of it the Court finds therein no perversity or legal infirmity which may result into any miscarriage of justice, considering the overall state of affairs upon examination of order at length as well we are of the considered opinion that there is no error committed by the learned judge in passing the order of acquittal by exercising jurisdiction under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. 10. We are mindful of the fact that the appellate jurisdiction is vide enough to re-examine the entire evidence and come to a different conclusion but at the same time, it is settled proposition of law that even if another view is possible, the view taken by the learned Judge is not to be so interfered with especially when the Court below had an opportunity to see demeanor of witnesses and therefore only one view is possible upon analysis then only the order of acquittal can be interfered with and this law is succinctly analysed by series of decisions few of which are reproduced hereinafter as the Court has taken the assistance of the same. "In case of Sureshkumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (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. 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. 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. "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. 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) Govindaraju v. State (2012) 4 SCC 722 : ( AIR 2012 SC 1292 : 2012 AIR SCW 1994). 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. 30 and 31. 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. 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 post-mortem report, are of the opinion that the cause of death of Bimla Bai although is shrouded in mystery 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. The decision taken by the Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa v. State, reported in 2016 AIR (SC) 2045, wherein the apex Court in paragraph No. 21 observed thus: 21. The decision taken by the Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa v. State, reported in 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. 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 ." 11. In the premises aforesaid and in view of the facts and circumstances hereinabove, our comprehensive analysis of evidence as a whole independently and in co-relation with findings which have been arrived by the learned trial Judge, we are of the opinion that the trial Court appears to have not committed any error, nor any legal infirmity is visible in the order passed by the learned trial Judge which can be said to be perverse and further in absence of any such element available, we are unable to dislodge the findings arrived at by the learned trial Judge and therefore in affirmation with the said reasonings and conclusion, we deem it proper to hold that State Appeal has no merits and the same accordingly deserves to be dismissed and consequently the judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1990 deserves to be confirmed. 12. The present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1990 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, is hereby confirmed. 12. The present appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 28.02.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 47 of 1990 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds shall stand discharged. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.