Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 854 (JK)

State of J&K v. Kuldeep Raj alias Katu

2017-09-14

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Feeling aggrieved by order/judgment dated 22nd July, 2005 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, acquitting the respondent (hereinafter for short ‘as accused’) for the offences punishable under sections 307, 324, 326, 342 RPC, State has preferred instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.06/2006. 2. The impugned judgment is challenged on the following grounds:- (a) The aforesaid order/judgment impugned in appeal is against the law and the facts of the case. As such, the same is required to be set aside. (b) The learned Judge has mis-appreciated the evidence and mis-construed the law attracted to the facts of the present case. As such, the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside on this score also. (c) The learned Judge by ordering acquittal of the accused (respondent herein) has committed grave error in law, which has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment. (d) The prosecution has successfully proved the allegations levelled against the respondent and the oral and documentary evidence produced during the trial has undoubtedly established the commission of alleged offences by the respondent, but even then the learned Judge has ordered his acquittal. 3. I have heard counsel for the State and counsel for accused/respondent. 4. Brief facts of case are that SHO, Police Station, R.S. Pura received an information from Police Post, Miran Sahib as per report of Roznamcha No. 26 that on 02nd March, 1996, that accused took one-Yog Raj at about 11.30 in the evening to his house with the plea of repairing his iron box, where he was confined in a room. On this, he made noise, his mother, Shanti Devi came there, and who was also confined. On making noise by them, many people assembled there. During confinement, respondent had injured them, so they were taken to hospital. An assault was made by the accused with an intention to kill them. 5. On this report, FIR No.42/96 under Sections 307, 342 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act was lodged. The matter was investigated. The statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded. The accused was found liable under Sections 307, 324, 326 and 342 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. Accordingly, challan was presented before the Court of learned Munsiff, JMFC, R.S. Pura, who found that the offence was under Section 307, so case was committed to the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. P.C. was recorded. The accused was found liable under Sections 307, 324, 326 and 342 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. Accordingly, challan was presented before the Court of learned Munsiff, JMFC, R.S. Pura, who found that the offence was under Section 307, so case was committed to the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu transferred the case to the Court of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. Thereafter, charge was framed against the respondent and on denial of the allegations levelled against him; the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. The prosecution examined witnesses cited in the charge-sheet and, the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu vide order dated 22nd July, 2005 (Annexure-A) acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the charges leveled against the accused on the ground that prosecution has not proved his case beyond reasonable doubts. 6. I have considered rival contentions and law on the subject. 7. The only question that arises for consideration in this acquittal appeal is, whether the trial Court was justified in doubting the credibility of prosecution case as projected during trial. 8. The scope of power of appellate court in case of acquittal has been highlighted by Apex Court in case AIR 2014 SC 2200 in case titled ‘Muralidhar alias Gidda & anr. v State of Karnatka’ [Criminal Appeal No.551 with 791 and 1081 of 2011, D/- 9-4-2014], which reads as under:- “10. Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup[1], highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said, "... the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years. 11. 11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh [2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed, "............the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons." 12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu [3], Madan Mohan Singh [4], Atley [5], Aher Raja Khima [6], Balbir Singh [7], M.G. Agarwal [8], Noor Khan [9], Khedu Mohton [10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade [11], Lekha Yadav [12], Khem Karan [13], Bishan Singh [14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai [15], K. Gopal Reddy [16], Tota Singh [17], Ram Kumar [18], Madan Lal [19], Sambasivan [20], Bhagwan Singh [21], Harijana Thirupala [22], C. Antony [23], K. Gopalakrishna [24], Sanjay Thakran [25] and Chandrappa [26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) 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. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court. In ‘Ghurey Lal v State of U.P.’ (2008) 10 SCC 450 , the Court has culled out the principles relating to the appeals from a judgment of acquittal which are in line with what we have observed above.” 9. Prosecution has cited as many as 12 witnesses but has examined 9 witnesses. Brief resume of the same reads as under:- PW-1 Shanti Devi has stated that three years elapsed. It was 1st March, the accused person present in the Court came to her house at 10.30 in the evening and called her son-Yog Raj. Her son accompanied the accused and he was confined by the accused in his house and blow of knife was being given on her son. Her son made a noise. She went there and she too had been confined there. She pushed the door of the room and meanwhile, the accused took a ‘dhah’ and started injuring them. The accused gave blow of ‘dhah’ on her arms, shoulder and head. She also got injured and turned unconscious. The whole villagers came there and they took them to hospital. She did not know why accused confined them. She remained in the hospital for 28 days. The police had come to the hospital and recorded her statement on 12th July, 1996, which appears her thumb impression marked EXPW SD. ‘Dhah’ seized shown in the Court is the same. The whole villagers came there and they took them to hospital. She did not know why accused confined them. She remained in the hospital for 28 days. The police had come to the hospital and recorded her statement on 12th July, 1996, which appears her thumb impression marked EXPW SD. ‘Dhah’ seized shown in the Court is the same. In cross examination, it has been stated that they have some enmity on the basis of land. The house of the accused is at a distance of 100 ft. away from her house. Around the house of accused, there are many houses. Prior to take her son by the accused to the house of accused, there was nobody. Thereafter, people assembled there. When she opened the door, her son fled away and her son came again at the place of occurrence when other people came there. Her son had also received injuries. She was not in the state of consciousness, as a result of which, she could not state, how many people had assembled there. When she reached at the place of occurrence, the door was bolted from inside. She did not tell to anybody. She herself tried to open the door. Near the occurrence, there are two rooms. She had requested the mother of accused that she be saved from the accused, but the mother of the accused remained standing there. Bhabhi of the accused was residing in the other room. In the hospital, she was told that the whole village was assembled there. She cannot state the length of ‘dhah’, which was used by accused. Electricity of the room was on. Then, the accused switched off the light. She did not see the light and saw the ‘dhah’. She had not seen the knife and saw only ‘dhah’. The accused had made an attempt to kill her. Her daughters had also come to the hospital. Their names are Suman and Suresh and no other came to hospital. This is correct to say that the accused has lodged a case against them, which is pending in the City Court and date is fixed as 26th. PW-2 Pritam Lal has stated that the accused is known to him. Three years have elapsed. At 11 o’clock in the night, the house of the accused and injured persons are nearer to each other. He had gone out of his home. PW-2 Pritam Lal has stated that the accused is known to him. Three years have elapsed. At 11 o’clock in the night, the house of the accused and injured persons are nearer to each other. He had gone out of his home. When he came back, heard noise and was conveyed that Shanti Devi had been beaten. He went to the house of the accused and there, he saw the door was closed and was bolted from inside and he went inside after crossing the wall. There he saw that Shanti Devi had fallen there in an injured condition and the accused was not there. Shanti Devi had received injuries on the arms and shoulder and was bleeding. She made a noise. They took Shanti Devi on a ‘cot’ to Chowdhary Sangra’s house and from there, she was taken on vehicle through P/P, Miran Sahib. There she was referred to hospital and she remained admitted there. Yog Raj was also taken by them alongwith because the hand of Yog Raj was also injured. He had not enquired from Yog Raj that how Yog Raj had received injuries, but police has recorded the statement of Yog Raj. He was told by Yog Raj that the accused had taken him on the pretending of some work to his house and there the accused started beating him with ‘dhah’. Yog Raj further told that he made a noise and his mother came there. The accused assaulted on the mother of Yog Raj, who remained admitted in the hospital. The police had not seized anything in his presence. Only clothes were seized. The In charge P/P had obtained his signatures on paper. In cross examination, he has stated that he does not have any knowledge about the occurrence. When the accused was beating Shanti Devi, he was not at the place of occurrence. Then, Yog Raj was taken by the accused to the house of accused. That time also, he was not there. The parents of the accused were also present in the house of the accused. The upper side of the father of the accused had also received injuries inside the room and the blood had fallen on the floor. The accused was not there. He has not made any statement before the police. In the room of accused, he had only seen Shanti Devi. The upper side of the father of the accused had also received injuries inside the room and the blood had fallen on the floor. The accused was not there. He has not made any statement before the police. In the room of accused, he had only seen Shanti Devi. Thereafter, Sham Lal, Harbans Lal and Bishamber Dass had also come at the place of occurrence. PW-3 Yog Raj has stated that the accused present in the Court is known to him. On 1st March, 1996, when he was watching TV, the accused came to his house and enquired about his welfare. The accused told him to accompany the accused to his house. The accused was having the cloth around his hand. In his enquiry, he was told by the accused that the accused was received injuries in the hand while repairing some articles, so the accused requested him to accompany to his house to repair some articles. The accused has kept a ‘toka’ on his bed. He closed the door and bolted from inside. The accused gave blow of toka on him. Then, the accused took some ‘kirch’ and again gave a blow on him. He tried to save himself and made a noise. On his noise, his mother and sister came and they opened the door. He fled away from the spot. The accused caught hold of his mother and injured her. Afterwards, he heard that the accused had injured his mother also. He and his mother were taken to hospital. She remained in the hospital for about one and half month, as she had received injuries on the arm and legs. In cross examination, has stated how much distance in the house of accused and his house. The accused had come to call him. He was alone in his house. The other family members were in other room. The accused brought him alongwith inside the room of accused. There was nobody and the accused was alone there. The parents of the accused were also alone there, but they were not there in the room of the accused. When he was being beaten by the accused, the parents of the accused came there and he does not know whether his father has received any injury or not. On hearing a noise, his mother and sister had come there. His sister, namely Sudesh Kumari had not been injured. When he was being beaten by the accused, the parents of the accused came there and he does not know whether his father has received any injury or not. On hearing a noise, his mother and sister had come there. His sister, namely Sudesh Kumari had not been injured. He remained 5/7 minutes in the room. During that time, the accused inflicted injuries on him. When the door was got opened, he fled away. His mother was caught hold by the accused and the accused injured his mother. He came to his house and did not go to the police station. Many people had assembled there. He was told by the people that the accused had beaten his mother. He had not seen the occurrence regarding injuring his mother. He had not made any statement before the police. He had not stated to the police that he had received injuries with knife. The knife used has not seen in the Court today. ‘Toka’ used also has not seen today in the Court. The police had not shown any knife or toka to him. He had some dispute over the land with the accused. This is wrong to say that he has injured the father of the accused. He had not accompanied to the place of occurrence. Around his house, there are 10/12 houses. He was in the state of conscious when he was inside the house of accused. PW-4 Karmjit has stated that he knew the accused and Yog Raj. He was sleeping in his house on the date of occurrence. He heard some noise, came out of his house and saw that from the house of the accused, there was a noise. He went to the house of the accused and heard from inside the words “leave me”. But somebody was telling that “I will not leave you”. Then sister of Yog Raj also went to the house of the accused and Yog Raj came out of the house of the accused. He took Yog Raj to the house of Yog Raj. After half an hour, he again heard noise from the house of the accused. Then, he crossed the wall of the house of the accused and the door of the house of the accused was opened . Everybody entered inside the house and inside, they saw that Shanti Devi was bleeding and the accused was not there. After half an hour, he again heard noise from the house of the accused. Then, he crossed the wall of the house of the accused and the door of the house of the accused was opened . Everybody entered inside the house and inside, they saw that Shanti Devi was bleeding and the accused was not there. Then, they went to Chowdhary’s house and demanded jeep. Shanti Devi was taken to hospital. Balwant and Pritam were accompanied them. Shanti Devi remained in the hospital for two months. She received injuries on arm and shoulder. The police had come to the village, but nothing was done by the police in his presence. On the Seizure Memo, the police have obtained his signatures at the police station, but the contents of the Seizure Memo are not correct because the police have seized nothing in his presence. In cross examination, he has stated that the accused is his cousin brother. They have good relations with each other. They are residing adjacent to each other. When he went second time to the place of occurrence, many people were assembled there. The door of the premises of the house of the accused was closed, so he crossed the wall of the premises. Inside he saw that blood had fallen there and 25/30 people assembled there. Almost the whole village was there and the parents and Bhabhi of the accused were also there. He does not know that the father of the accused was injured or not. He had not talked to anybody there. Witness-Pritam Lal had come. After his arrival, Yog Raj had received injuries in his hand and was bleeding. PW-5 Kewal Krishan has stated that the accused and injured persons are known to him. In the year 1996 at about 10-11 in the night, he was sleeping in his house. Shanti Devi was being taken to hospital. He was told by his wife that the accused, namely, Kuldeep Raj had injured Shanti Devi. On 3rd day, the police came there. At the place of occurrence, the accused was not there. The accused had fled away and he had been caught after 5/6 months by police. Shanti Devi had received injuries. In cross examination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence himself. About occurrence, he has no knowledge. With PW-Karmjit Singh and the accused; he has not good relation presently. The accused had fled away and he had been caught after 5/6 months by police. Shanti Devi had received injuries. In cross examination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence himself. About occurrence, he has no knowledge. With PW-Karmjit Singh and the accused; he has not good relation presently. Police had obtained his signatures on the paper, but the contents were not read over to him. PW-6 K. K. Raina Scientific Officer, FSL has stated that on 24th April, 1996, he was posted as Scientific Officer FSL, Jammu when three sealed packets were received from SDP, R.S. Pura vide his Letter No. 1293-94/SDR dated 21st April, 1996 through Constable-Prem Singh No. 1235/J in connection with the case FIR No. 42/96 u/s 307/342 RPC and 4/25 A.A, Police Station, R.S. Pura. The seals on the packets were intact and tallied with the specimen seal impression forwarded by the Executive Magistrate, Tehsildar, R.S. Pura. On opening the packets market as ‘A and A-1’ sealed with 7, 7 and 11 intact seals, these were found to contain a very feebly stained knife, putrefied faul smelling clyand blood and feebly stained torn shirt, moderately stain torn printed shirt and moderately stained torn vest, which were marked as EXHIBITS K-1/96 to K-5/96 respectively. A portion from each of the EXHIBITS was subjected to chemical, microscopical and serological examination for the determination of presence origin and groups of blood. In examination, presence of blood in all the EXHIBITS, i.e., K-1/96 to K-5/96. The EXHIBITS marked as 3/96 to 5/96 were stained with human blood, but the groups could not be determined, as the results were inconclusive. The EXHIBITS marked as 2/96, the blood was found to be in disintegrated condition and the origin and group of blood could not be determined. The Report bearing No. 242/FSL/96 dated 04th June, 1996 got wrapped out under my instruments. Statement of witness was deferred and rest of the statement was recorded on 29th March, 2003 and cross examined by defence counsel. The witness has stated that the articles, which he had examined in the Laboratory were not shown to him in the Court. He cannot say as to whether articles sent to him for examination belong to the victim or the accused or any other person. No sample of blood of the victim was forwarded to him for confirmation of blood. The witness has stated that the articles, which he had examined in the Laboratory were not shown to him in the Court. He cannot say as to whether articles sent to him for examination belong to the victim or the accused or any other person. No sample of blood of the victim was forwarded to him for confirmation of blood. Since, so samples of blood of the victim or injured person were sent to him, from which he could ascertain the blood group of the victim. PW-7 Dr. Mohd. Anwar Bhat, Medical Officer has stated that he examined Shanti Devi brought to him by the Constable, namely, Bodh Raj on 02nd March, 1996 at 1.45 P.M found injuries detailed in the Certificate. In his opinion, three injuries were grievous in nature and caused by the sharp weapon. Duration of injuries was 5 hours. The Certificate bears his signatures and marks as EXPW MA. In cross examination, he has stated that he has not seen the injured person today in the Court. These injuries are not possible by fall or by vehicular accident. He does not remember that the weapon of offence was shown to him or not. 10. After closing of witnesses of prosecution, the statement of accused was recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C. Court after appreciating the evidence has acquitted the accused on the grounds that there are contradictions in the statements of material witnesses. 11. Now I will re appreciate the evidence on record in order to see as to whether court below has rightly appreciated the evidence or there is perversity in judgment. 12. Court below has firstly held that PW-Dr. Mohd. Anwar Bhat has examined Shanti Devi and found the injuries on the person of injured and has given opinion that three injuries are grievous in nature and caused by sharp weapon during five hours, as per EXHIBIT EXPW MA/1. In cross examination has stated that the injuries are not possible by fall or vehicular accident. He does not remember the weapon of offence shown to him by the police. PW-K.K. Raina, Scientific Officer has stated that he received sealed packets, which tallied with the specimen seal. In cross examination has stated that the injuries are not possible by fall or vehicular accident. He does not remember the weapon of offence shown to him by the police. PW-K.K. Raina, Scientific Officer has stated that he received sealed packets, which tallied with the specimen seal. On opening the packets marked as A-1, A-2 sealed with 7, 7 and 11 intact seals, a portion from each of the EXHIBITS was subjected to chemical, microscopical and serological examination for the determination of presence origin and groups of blood. In cross examination has stated that he cannot state that articles went to him were belonging to the victim. No sample of the blood of the victim was sent to him, so that he could have been ascertained the blood of victim. So these are expert witnesses and their evidence is only for the purpose of corroboration. 13. Court below has also held that PW-8 (Balwant Singh) has stated that the accused, namely Kuldeep Raj, Shanti Devi (injured) and her son are known to him. Near about 8/9 months back at about 9.45 P.M, Sain Dass came to him and told him that the accused beat Shanti Devi. He went to the place of occurrence and saw the injured in the vehicle of Chowdhary Sangra, who was taken to police station and then to hospital. In cross examination, he has stated that he has not seen the occurrence, as he was told by Sain Dass about the occurrence. This witness is, thus, hearsay witnesses. PW-Kewal Krishan has stated that he has no knowledge of occurrence. This way, he has not stated anything against the accused. The statement of this witness is thus of no consequence. PW-9 Karanjit Singh has stated that he heard noise from the house of the accused. He came out of his house and saw that from the house of the accused, there was noise. He went to the house of the accused and heard from inside the words, “leave me”. But somebody was telling that “I will not leave you”. Then, the sister of Yog Raj also went to the house of the accused and Yog Raj came out of the house of the accused. He took Yog Raj to the house of Yog Raj. But somebody was telling that “I will not leave you”. Then, the sister of Yog Raj also went to the house of the accused and Yog Raj came out of the house of the accused. He took Yog Raj to the house of Yog Raj. After half an hour, he again heard noise and then, he crossed the wall of the house of the accused and the door was open. He saw Shanti Devi in an injured condition, but the accused was not there. Court below has held that in this way, he too has not supported the prosecution version about the infliction of the injuries on Shanti Devi. He has also stated that the parents and Bhabhi of the accused were also there and the sister of the injured was also there. But they have not been cited as witnesses. 14. PW-Pritam Lal has stated that he has heard that the accused has beaten Shanti Devi. He has further stated that he has gone after crossing the wall and saw injured-Shanti Devi in an injured condition, but has stated that the accused was not there. As per Court finding, he too has not stated anything against the accused about the infliction of injuries on Shanti Devi. Rather he has stated that he has no personal knowledge. 15. According to Court below, these witnesses have thus stated nothing incriminating against the accused. These all findings with regard to appreciation of above said witnesses are not perverse in nature. The finding of court below is based on facts produced by prosecution before court below. 16. Now we are left to appreciate the statement of two injured witnesses; PW-Yog Raj is an injured person, who has stated that he was taken by the accused to his house and took a Toka and injured him. Then, the accused took some ‘kirch’ and again gave a blow on him. He tried to save himself and made a noise. On his making a noise, his mother and sister came there and opened the door by force and he fled away. In his cross examination he has stated that accused injured his mother, but has stated that afterwards he was told by people that accused injured his mother. He has stated that accused firstly injured him by Toka then by Kirch. 17. In his cross examination he has stated that accused injured his mother, but has stated that afterwards he was told by people that accused injured his mother. He has stated that accused firstly injured him by Toka then by Kirch. 17. Whereas PW-Shanti Devi, who is the mother of Yog Raj and was injured has stated that his son was confined by the accused in a room and was inflicted injuries with Dhah. So there is no clear cut evidence as to which weapon of offence was used. From the statements of these two injured, three weapons of offence have been used. Weapon of offence has not been produced before Court, because PW Yog Raj has stated that Toka was not shown to him in Court. Further both witnesses have stated that sister of Yog Raj had also reached on spot and even family of accused were also on spot; but no one has been made witness. 18. Both witnesses to recovery of weapon of offence have not supported the contents of seizure memo. 19. Court below after appreciating the evidence on record has observed that in view of the statement of injured-Yog Raj and his mother Shanti Devi, the sister of injured, parents and Bhabi of accused were also on spot, but they have not been arrayed as witnesses so the case of prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubts. This finding when considered along with other attending circumstances of case, there arises serious doubt in truthfulness of prosecution case. 20. One more dent in the prosecution case is that I/O in the case has not been examined. Non examination of I/O, the FIR, site map, and other relevant documents have not been proved. The copy of roznamzcha of police post on the basis of which FIR was lodged has also not been proved, because concerned I/C P/P has not been produced; seizure memo of weapon of offence, seizure memo of plane soil and blood stained soil, seizure memo of blood stained clothes of injured Shant Devi have not been proved, because both PWs Karam Jeet Singh and Pritam Lal have denied these aspects of matter, so these seizure memo have remained un-exhibited. Further statements of PW Shanti Devi and Yog Raj under section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded on 12.3.1996 after more than 11 days of occurrence. No explanation has come. Further statements of PW Shanti Devi and Yog Raj under section 161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded on 12.3.1996 after more than 11 days of occurrence. No explanation has come. Had I/O been examined, accused would have put question to him in this regard. In this way, I am of the view that prejudice has been caused in defense due to non examination of investigating officer. In arriving at conclusion about guilt of accused charged with heinous crime, the court has to judge the evidence by yardsticks of probabilities .Every case has its own facts. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on basis of moral conviction or suspicion. The burden of proof never shift, it is always on prosecution. Court has to base conviction on some legal evidence. 21. Appellate Court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence, interference with the judgment of acquittal is only justified, if the view taken by the trial court is inherently impossible. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the Appellate Court in the judgment of the trial court. 22. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find any perversity of law and facts in the judgment of Court below. It is upheld accordingly. Criminal Acquittal Appeal filed by State is dismissed accordingly.