Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 30 August, 2022
Author: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6058 of 2018 Appellant :- Mahendra Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Karan Patel,Ram Milan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vikas Tripathi With Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION DEFECTIVE U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 108 of 2018 Applicant :- Ram Awadh Patel Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vikas Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Ram Milan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and Sri Vikas Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent informant and perused the record. There is a connected defective criminal appeal which is of the year 2018, preferred by the original informant. This appeal is also heard along with the present appeal.
3. Appeal No. 6058 of 2018 has been preferred by the appellant Mahendra Kumar against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge/FTC (Crime against Women) Jaunpur, in S.T. No. 306 OF 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and ¾ D.P. Act (State vs. Mahendra Kumar and another), P.S. Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, whereby the appellant is convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC, for 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine for two months additional imprisonment to the accussed appellant and further sentincing under Section 304B IPC for 10 years R.I., under section 4 D.P. Act for one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine one month additional imprisonment and all the sentences shall run concurrently. .
4. The brief facts as revealed from the record and proceedings are that the incident occurred on 16th May, 2015 namely within one year of the marriage, as the marriage took place on 08.06.2014 between appellant Mahendra Kumar and the deceased. The father of the deceaed lodged the FIR alleging therein that his daughter was being harassed for not bringing proper dowry. It was alleged that her in-laws demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) and a gold chain. Immediately before the death for harassing her she has also been physically tortured. After having knowledge of this atrocity of the in-laws, the complainant along with his family members went to house of the in-laws of his daughter and showed their inability to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a gold chain, but they were threatened with dire consequences. On 16.05.2015 in the night, the accused persons/in-laws of his daughter along with her husband committed murder of the deceased and hanged her. The informant or his family members were not communicated about anything regarding the death of the deceased. The informant got the information about the incident from village people. The first information report was lodged by the complainant / father of the deceased on 27.05.2015. The investigation was conducted by investigating officer and after recording statement of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. and preparing the punchanama, and after the post mortem of the deceased, conducted by Dr. Ashutosh Pandey who opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the accused Mahendra Kumar and Champa Devi.
5. The learned magistrate before whom charge sheet was laid, as the offences were triable by court of sessions, committed the case to the court of sessions, The Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges on 04.07.2016 and accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution examined following witnesses:-
1.
Ram Awadh Patel P.W.1
2. Ramdeen Patel P.W.2
3. Dr. Ashutosh Pandey P.W. 3
4. Arvind Kumar Mishra P.W. 4
5. Deep Narayan Singh P.W. 5
6. Surya Nath Singh P.W. 6
7. Apart from aforesaid witnesses prosecution submitted following documentary evidence which were exhibited as they were proved by leading oral evidence:-
1.
Tehrir Ex. Ka. 1
2. Panchayatnama Ex. Ka. 2
3. Postmortem Report Ex. Ka. 3
4. Photonas Ex. Ka. 4
5. Police papers Ex. Ka. 5
6. Namunamohar Ex Ka. 6
7. Letter to Pratisar Nirikshak Ex. Ka 7
8. Letter CMO Ex, Ka 8
9. Nakshanajari Ex. Ka 9
10. Charge-sheet Ex. Ka 10
11. FIR Ex. Ka 11
12. Carbon copy of GD Ex. Ka 12
8. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (Cr.P.C.), in which they denied their involvement in the crime and contended that false evidence was led against them. The accused persons have not examined any witness in defence.
9. The accused Mahendra Kumar has been convicted by the trial court whereas acquittal order for accused Champa Devi has been passed.
10. The learned court below returned the finding of guilt and sentenced Mahendra Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years of commission of offence under Section 304 (B) and 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
11. So far Section 498A IPC is concerned, the accused was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, under Section 304B IPC, he was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and under Section 4 of D.P. Act, he was sentenced to one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. All these sentences were to run concurrently. Accused is under trial convict having incarceration of 5 years and more, therefore, it can be safely said that he has undergone the punishment under section 498A IPC read with section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter is now being argued for acquital/ sentencing under Section 304B IPC, learned counsel Sri Mishra has taken us through the oral testimony of all the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution.
12. As against this, Sri Goswami has submitted that it is a homicidal death and the learned Trial Judge has rightly come to the conclusion from the evidence on record that it was a homicidal death. It is further submitted that death occurred in the matrimonial home of the deceased.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent State has heavily relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maruti Kirken vs.State of Maharastra 2006 (3) 1426 SC:-
"If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation."
15. While going through the testimony of the witnesses namely Ram Awadh Patel and Ram Deen Patel, the fact which comes before the Court is that the deceased was married to Mahendra on 8.6.2014. P.W.1 and P.W. 2 in their Examination-in-Chief categorically mentioned that the deceased was being beaten and the applicant was always demanding that the amount should be given by way of additional dowry, namely, Rs. one lakh and a gold chain. The informant had requested the accused and his mother and all relatives that he was not capable to fulfill their demand. Further, no information regarding the death of the deceased was given to informant. The informant P.W. 1 has also clearly mentioned that he came to know about the death of the deceased only when the people in the village started talking about her death. PW-2 has also deposed the similar facts and also stated that Mahendra, who was serving in Bombay had left for Bombay where he was serving. This witness does not know whether Mahendra was at his place (namely home) when the incident occurred or not. It was further submitted that at the third time when the deceased went to the matrimonial home the demand of dowry was also made.
16. While going through the judgment of the trial court which has convicted the accused, a finding of fact is recorded that evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 corroborates each other. After second time deceased came to her parental home and during third time when she visited her parental home, she complained about demand of dowry. The witnesses and her father went to her in-laws home and requested that he has no capacity to pay the said amount. Despite that, demand continued. The learned court below had also relied on the judgment which has been referred above namely Trimukh Maruti Kirken (supra) and, therefore, also it cannot be said that the evidence of the witnesses should not believed because they are family members of the deceased. There is no need for any independent witness to be examined. There is no delay in lodging the FIR and in view of the judgment relied upon in the case of Trimukh Maruti Kirken (supra), the finding of learned trial judge cannot be found fault with. The death in fact was in an unnatural condition. However, considering the facts that the appellant has also raised certain facts which required consideration namely he was serving in Bombay, that Mahendra Kumar and others were demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- and gold chain and they physically harassed the deceased but these facts did not find corroboration from the FIR. Be that as it may be, the death has occurred in the house of the accused. The Medical evidence which has been produced is as under:-
Skin under line ligature mark is ecchymosed and on cut section skin and musclesure are ecchymosed petechial hemorrhage are present on the face upper chest left hands, venus congestion on upperchest and hands,mouth. Partially opened and drivling of saliva present from right side of mouth finger nails are pale.
17. The oral testimony of P.W.3 Dr. Ashutosh Pandey, who had performed the post mortem of the dead body, it is clear that deceased died from asphyxia due to ante mortem injuries.
18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed fine and default sentence maintained.
19. Sentence of 10 years is reduced to 7 years fine and default sentence maintained.
20. This court is thankful to both the counsels for assisting this Court.
Order Date :- 30.8.2022 v.k.updh.
Judgment in Crl. Misc. Application Defecetive U/S 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave to Appeal ) No. 108 of 2018, Ram Awadh Patel vs. State of U.P. and another.
1. Heard Sri Vikas Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and Sri Vikas Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent informant and perused the record. There is a connected defective criminal appeal which is of the year 2018, preferred by the original informant.
2. This appeal is also heard along with the present appeal.
3. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ram Awadh patel against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge/FTC (Crime against Women) Jaunpur, in S.T. No. 306 OF 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 262 of 2015, under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and ¾ D.P. Act (State vs. Mahendra Kumar and another), P.S. Sujanganj, District Jaunpur, whereby the appellant is convicted and sentenced for the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC, for 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine for two months additional imprisonment to the accussed appellant and further sentencing under Section 304B IPC for 10 years R.I., under section 4 D.P. Act for one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine one month additional imprisonment and all the sentences shall run concurrently. .
4. The brief facts as revealed from the record of proceedings are that the incident occurred on 16th May, 2015 within one year of the marriage, as the marriage took place on 08.06.2014 between appellant Mahendra Kumar and the deceased. The father of the deceaed lodged the FIR alleging therein that his daughter was being harassed for not bringing proper dowry. It was alleged that her in-laws demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh) and a gold chain. Immediately before the death for harassing her she has also been physically tortured. After having knowledge of this atrocity of the in-laws, the complainant along with his family members went to house of the in-laws of his daughter and showed their inability to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a gold chain, but they were threatened with dire consequences. On 16.05.2015 in the night, the accused persons/in-laws of his daughter along with her husband committed murder of the deceased and hanged her. The informant or his family members were not communicated about anything regarding the death of the deceased. The informant got the information about the incident from village people. The first information report was lodged by the complainant / father of the deceased on 27.05.2015. The investigation was conducted by investigating officer and after recording statement of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. and preparing the punchanama, the post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ashutosh Pandey who opined that the cause of death was Asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet against the accused Mahendra Kumar and Champa Devi.
5. The appellant Ram Awadh patel has challenged the judgment of acquittal. The case is that the deceased was married with son of respondent no. 2 Smt. Champa Devi. General allegation against family members have been levelled.
6. Nothing is brought on record to show that the judgment of learned court below has wrongly acquitted the accused.
7. Before we embark on testimony and appreciate the reasonings in the judgment of the Court below, the contours for interfering in Criminal Appeals where accused have been held to be not guilty would require to be discussed.
8. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of an appeal by this Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of "M.S. NARAYANA MENON @ MANI VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANR", (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."
9. Further, in the case of "CHANDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA", reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court laid down the following principles;
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
[3] Various expressions, such as,"substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
[4] An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
[5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
10. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views/conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
11. In the case titled "STATE OF GOA Vs. SANJAY THAKRAN & ANR.", reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in appeals against acquittal. In para 16 of the said decision, the Court has observed as under:
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
12. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases titled "STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM VEER SINGH & ORS.", 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in "GIRJA PRASAD (DEAD) BY L.R.s VS. STATE OF MP", 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled.
13. In the case of "LUNA RAM VS. BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS.", reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10 and 11 has held as under:
"10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition.
11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence."
14. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case titled "MOOKKIAH AND ANR. VS. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU", reported in AIR 2013 SC 321, the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:
"4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while hoosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573]"
15. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. HEMAREDDY", AIR 1981, SC 1417, wherein it is held as under:
"...This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
16. The Apex Court in "SHIVASHARANAPPA & ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA", JT 2013 (7) SC 66 has held as under:
"That appellate Court is empowered to reappreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence."
17. Further, in the case of "STATE OF PUNJAB VS. MADAN MOHAN LAL VERMA", (2013) 14 SCC 153, the Apex Court has held as under:
"The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convincing the accused person."
18. The Apex Court recently in Jayaswamy vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 7 SCC 219, has laid down the powers of appellate court in re-appreciating the evidence in a case where the State has preferred an appeal against acquittal, which read as follows:
"10.It is by now well settled that the Appellate Court hearing the appeal filed against the judgment and order of acquittal will not overrule or otherwise disturb the Trial Court's acquittal if the Appellate Court does not find substantial and compelling reasons for doing so. If the Trial Court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; if the Trial Court's decision was based on erroneous view of law; if the Trial Court's judgment is likely to result in grave miscarriage of justice; if the entire approach of the Trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; if the Trial Court judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; and if the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of the ballistic expert etc. the same may be construed as substantial and compelling reasons and the first appellate court may interfere in the order of acquittl. However, if the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused is one of the possible views under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Court generally will not interfere with the order of acquittal particularly in the absence of the aforementioned factors.
.........................It is relevant to note the observations of this Court in the case of Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606, which reads thus:
"21.There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to re-appreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not."
19. The Apex Court recently in Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SC 750, has held that the appellate court is reversing the trial court's order of acquittal, it should give proper weight and consideration to the presumption of innocence in favour of accused, and to the principle that such a presumption sands reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court and in Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, (2019) 18 SCC 161 held that judgment of acquittal, where two views are possible, should not be set aside, even if view formed by appellate court may be a more probable one, interference with acquittal can only be justified when it is based on a perverse view.
20. We have relied upon the judgment of apex Court in the Case of Jwala Prasad vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) II SCC 702 and Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 8 SCC 128, in which it is held that there is no hesitation in holding that all the ingredients necessary to draw the presumption of commission of the offence under Section 304B IPC, do not exist.
21. We have perused the depositions of prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence supporting ocular versions, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. We have been taken through the record. We are unable to accept the submissions of the State counsel for the following reasons and the judgments of the Apex Court which lay down the criteria for consideration of appeals against acquittal. The chain has been found to be incomplete. While going through the judgment it is very clear that the court below has given a categorical finding that the evidence is so scanty that the accused cannot punished or convicted for the offences for which they are charged. The factual scenario in the present case will not permit us to take a different view than that taken by the court below. In that view of the matter we are unable to satisfy ourselves. Thus we concur with the findings of the court below.
22. After considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and appraisal of the evidence available on record and on the contours laid down by the judgment of the Apex Court, we have no other option but to concur with the reasoning of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for the aforesaid reasons.
23. The Government Appeal sans merits and is dismissed. The record and proceedings be sent back to the Court below.
Order Date :- 30.8.2022 v.k.updh.