Delhi High Court
State vs Dharmender Alias Tittu And Ors. on 30 May, 2016
Author: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
Bench: G.S.Sistani, Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 250/2015
% Date of Judgment:30th May, 2016
STATE ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State
Versus
DHARMENDER @ TITTU & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
Crl.M.A. 7616/2016 (Delay)
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking condonation of 50 days‟ in filing the present leave to appeal petition.
2. Heard. Delay in filing the present leave to appeal petition is condoned.
3. Application stands disposed of.
Crl.L.P. 250/20154. Present leave to appeal petition has been filed by the State under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 15.12.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03 (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 44543/2015, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 1 of 19 charges framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
5. Before considering the submission of the State, we deem it appropriate to look into the case of the prosecution, as has been noticed by the learned trial court :
"The case of the prosecution that on 26.03.2008, on receipt of DD no. 26A through PCR, SHO alongwith HC Pardeep, HC Trilok and Ct. Devender reached GTB Hospital where injured Anil was hospitalized. IO collected MLC of injured who was unfit for statement. During treatment injured Anil expired. Sister of deceased namely Babita @ Neeta was also present at hospital. IO recorded her statement and she disclosed that accused Rohtash, Ashok, Dharmender @ Titu, Deepak, Sheri @ Rinku called deceased Anil from his house and thereafter killed him in front of her near Hanuman Mandir. She raised alarm but all accused ran away. A rukka was prepared by IO on the basis of her statement and handed over to Ct. Devender to get registered FIR. IO reached the spot. Crime Team visited the spot and took the photographs. IO prepared the site plan and seized exhinits. Two accused Ashok and Rohtash got hospitalized themselves after sustaining self inflicted injuries. All the accused were arrested and charge-sheeted."
6. Charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 2 of 197. To bring home the guilt of the respondents prosecution in all examined 20 witnesses. Statements of respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein they denied all the allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case. Respondents chose not to lead any evidence in their defence.
8. The learned Trial Court, after scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the onus of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt had not been satisfactorily discharged and created a strong doubt in the case of the prosecution based upon which the accused was acquitted.
9. Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the Trial Court disregarded the testimonies of the witnesses and failed to take into account the relevant material available on record and based its findings on mere surmises and conjectures.
10. Counsel further submitted that the quantity of evidence is of no consequence and it is the quality of evidence which is of prime importance and the prosecution has proved its case by leading unambiguous evidence that all the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy and stabbed the deceased.
11. Counsel for the state further submitted that the trial court committed serious error in discarding the cogent, credible and trustworthy testimony of the eye witness PW1, Babita (sister of the deceased) as well as of PW2 (mother of the deceased).
Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 3 of 1912. Learned counsel for the state further contended that the learned trial court erred in relying on the testimony of PW3 and declaring PW1 as a planted witness.
13. Counsel for the State further urged that learned trial court has failed to notice the MLC in the right prespective and erred in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondents on the ground that the recovered weapon of offence was short in length.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the state and also examined the judgment in detail rendered by the Trial Court.
15. Primarily the question which arises before the court for considertion is that whether the testimony of PW1 Babita sister of the deceased is trustworthy and can be made on the basis of conviction. In this context, it is relevant to examine the testimony of PW1 as well as the testimony of PW2 and PW3.
16. PW1 Babita sister of the deceased deposed in her examination in chief that:-
"On 26.03.2008 at about 11:00 am, accused Ashok, Rohtas, Teetu, Deepak Sheri and Rinku, present in the court today, came to our house and asked me whether my brother Anil is present in the house or not. I stated to them that Anil is not at the house. Thereafter they all went back and kept wandering in the gali. At about 05:15 pm, all the above said accused persons again came to our house and that time I along with my brother Anli were standing on the roof of the house. While standing in the gali, the accused persons called my brother Anil while stating that there was some urgent work with him and he should come down. On this, my brother Anil stated to them that he would come Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 4 of 19 after sometime. Then Teetu, Ashok and Rohtas again called my brother Anil to come down. Then my brother Anil came down from the roof and went with the accused persons. When my brother went out of the house. I got suspicious as three days prior to the said incident, accused persons threatened my brother Anil that they will kill him, as the accused persons use to ply bikes in the gali in rash and negligent way and used to tease the girls and my brother objected to this and on this the accused persons threatened my brother. I also started following the accused persons and my brother. On reaching in gali no. 7 near Hanuman Mandir, the accused persons stopped. At that time I was 100-150 meters away from them. When I hear the sound of hurling abuses, I rushed to the place where the accused persons abusing my brother Anil. My brother was surrounded by all the accused persons and they were also giving beatings to my brother.
XXXXXXX When I tried to save my brother from the cluthes of the accused persons, accused Titoo pushed me aside and I fell down. Thereafter I again tried to save my brother but all in vain. Accused Sheri & Rinku had caught hold of hands of my brother and accused Rohtash had caught hold of my brother from behind while accused Deepak Titoo & Ashok were giving bearings to my brother with legs & fist blows. When I raised alarm, accused Titoo said „Aaj Is Sale Ki Dadagiri Bikal Do" and accused Ashok who was carrying a knife at that time, gave one knife blow on the abdomen and one knife blow on the chest of my brother. When blood started oozing out from the injuries, all the accused persons ran away from the spot. My brother crying in pain fell down. I Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 5 of 19 tried to pick up my brother who was lying on the ground but could not as blood was oozing out from the injuries. Then I tied my chunni around his chest to stop bleeding. I asked for help but none came forward to extend help. I kept on crying. After some time , my brother in law (jija) and my mother reach the spot.
XXXX Thereafter my brother was removed by the PCR from the spot to the GTB Hospital. When we reached the hospital, my brother was being treated there. At that time, he was in senses and was talking. He told my mother that the accused persons stabbed him as he used to object to their rash driving in the lane and making unwarranted gestures towards girls."
17. PW1 Witness deposed in her cross examination that:-
"Hanuman Mandir is situated on the back gali of our gali. I had seen my deceased brother being stabbed from a very close distance. Police reached there within short time may be within 15 minutes.
XXXX Dinesh Kumar never visited the police in my presence. I do not remember if he visited my home in presence of the police officials. It is wrong to suggest that Dinesh Kumar visited the house and his statement was recorded in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that after seeing the incident my brother in law had sent some children at our residence to inform us and call us at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that my brother in law had stated to me and my family members that he can identify the assailants who were 10 to 15 in number.
XXXXXX I cannot identify the place of incident in site plan Ex. PW1/DA. It is wrong to suggest that I cannot Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 6 of 19 identifying the places in the site plan Ex. PW1/DA because I did not visit at the spot and I did not see the occurrence as shown in site plan Ex. PW1/DA. It is wrong to suggest that I cannot identifying the places in site plan Ex. PW1/DA because I did not visit at the spot and I did not see the occurrence as shown in the site plan Ex. PW1/DA.
XXXXX My clothes became blood stained when I tied my chunni and on the wound of my brother Anil and had tried to lift him. The chunni was taken into possession by the police but no other clothes of mine were taken into possession by the police which were stained with blood. It is correct to suggest that on 26.03.2008, accused Rinku had not visited my house at 11 a.m."
18. PW2 Kalawati mother of the deceased deposed in her examination in chief before the court that:-
"I stood at the door of my house and in the meantime, one child came to me and told me that „‟Aunit Anil ko Hanuman Mandir ke paas, isi ne chakoo maar diya hai‟‟. On this I immediately rushed to the Hanuman Mandir where many persons had gathered. On my asking from the persons who were present there as to who had stabbed my son, they told me that Titoo, Rohtash Ashok, Deepak, Rinku & Sher Singh had stabbed my son. My son was also lying there with stab injury wherefrom blood was oozing out and my daughter Babita was trying to lift him. I asked my daughter Babita as to what had happened whereupon she told me that above said accused persons came to the house at about 11:00am to call my son and she told that my son was not present in the house and thereafter the accused persons came to call my son in the evening at about 05;15 pm and took him along. She further told that since the accused persons had given threat to my Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 7 of 19 son 2-3 days prior to the incident, to see him which raised suspicion and she followed them. She further told me that the accused persons stabbed my son near hanuman Mandir in the presence. At the time when I reached the spot, my son was alive and in sense. I also asked my son as to who had caused the injury to which he replied that Ashok, Rohtash, Deepak, Titoo, Rinku & Sheri had stabbed him as he objected to their rash driving in the lane.‟‟
19. PW 2 Witness deposed in his cross examination that:-
"Some child had come to my house who had informed me about the incident. I can not tell the name of that child nor I tell the name of his father and his address. XXXX My statement was recorded by the police on the next day in P.S. I had told to the police in my statement that my son was alive and I asked him as to who had caused the injury to which he replied that Ashok, Rohtash, Deepak, Titoo, Rinku and Sheri had stabbed him as he objected to their rash driving in the lane. XXXX I cannot tell the colour and description of the clothes worn by my son at that time. I cannot tell even what clothes were worn by my daughter Babita at that time. Police reached at the spot after my reaching. I did not see whether the gypsy of the police was opened or was closed. However, it was a gypsy when police reached there. I and my family members were present there but we did not touch the body of my son. My son was lifted by the police officials only. Neither my clothes nor the clothes of my daughter became bloodstained. However, the chunni was tied by my daughter on the wound of my son. The colour of the chunni was yellow and maroon.Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 8 of 19
My daughter had tied the chunni on the wound of my son but I did not see how many knots it contained. XXXX I did not tell the name of the assailants who stabbed my son to the PCR officials though I was aware with the name of the assailants. When we reached at the hospital the police was already there."
20. PW3 Dinesh Kumar brother in law of the deceased deposed in his examination in chief that:-
"On 26.03.2008 at about 05:30 pm, while I was going towards Karawal Nagar and reached in the gali infront of Hanuman Mandir, Shahdat Pur, I saw that 10-12 boys were hurling abuses, my brother in law namely Anil (deceased) was also amongst those boys. I intervened and the matter was pacified. Thereafter, I left for my destination. When I reached at a distance of about 30-40 steps from there, I heard a cry and on hearing the said cry I immediately came back to that place where the said boys were abusing each others. When I reached there, my brother in law Anil was lying on the ground and the above said 10-12 persons were running from there. I chased those boys but could not overpower any of them. Thereafter, I came back to the place where my brother in law Anil was lying in injured condition as he had been stabbed on his person i.e. in his lower portion chest and upper portion of abdomen. Blood was oozing from the injury. Two/three children were also present there and I sent one of them to call any one from my mother in law or sister in law from their house. Thereafter, my sister in law Babita came there and she tied her chunni around the wound on the person of Anil from where the blood was oozing. My mother in law also reached there. Someone made a call Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 9 of 19 at number 100. PCR van reached there and any brother in law Anil was I told them "Koi Baat Nahin Jaane Do‟‟ and on hearing this Ashok took out the knife and threatened my by saying "Tu bada Himayati Banta hai. Bhag Ja Saale Ko Chaku Maar Doonga"
whereupon I ran away towards the Mandir and I stated so in my statement under section 161 Cr. P.C. Mark A (confronted with portion B to B where it is so recorded.). It is incorrect to suggest that when I running towards Mandir, my sister in law Babita came there while raising alarm "Mere Bhai Ko Chhor Do Ise Kyon Maar Rahe Ho" and when I saw behind while running, I saw that Ashok gave knife blow to Anil."
21. From the perusal of the above testimonies it has come on record that PW1 deposed in her examination in chief that she „started following the accused persons and my brother. On reaching in gali no. 7 near Hanuman Mandir, the accused persons stopped. At that time I was 100-150 meters away from them‟. She further deposed that „when I raised alarm, accused Titoo said ‟Aaj Is Sale Ki Dadagiri Bikal Do"
and accused Ashok who was carrying a knife at that time, gave one knife blow on the abdomen and one knife blow on the chest of my brother‟. Thereafter „I tied my chunni on the wound of my brother Anil and had tried to lift him‟. On the other hand PW2 supported the testimony of PW1 and deposed in the same lines. However, PW3 in his examination in chief deposed contrary to what PW1 and PW2 had deposed. PW3 deposed that when he was going towards Karawal Nagar and reached in the gali infront of Hanuman Mandir, Shahdat Pur, he saw that 10-12 boys were hurling abuses to his brother in law Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 10 of 19 (the deceased). He further deposed that when he „intervened and the matter was pacified. Thereafter, I left for my destination‟. On hearing cries he again returned to the spot and saw that „brother in law Anil was lying on the ground and the above said 10-12 persons were running from there. I chased those boys but could not overpower any of them‟. He further deposed that afterwards PW1 Babita came there and tied her chunni around the wound on the person of the Anil.
22. From the perusal of the testimony of PW3 Dinesh Kumar brother in law, it is clearly established that PW1 Babita sister of the deceased was not an eye witness to the incident and infact PW3 Dinesh Kumar was the person who firstly reached the spot. As per the deposition of PW3 he neither witnessed the crime nor was able to overpower the running accused person as only reached the spot after hearing the cries of his brother in law. Moreover, PW1 has made many improvements in her deposition before the court. In her statement before the police she stated that she accompanied the deceased at the time of incident, however, in her examination in chief she deposed that she was 100- 150 meters away from the deceased. Again in her statement before the police she has not stated as to who stabbed the deceased but in her examination in chief she has specifically assigned role of each of the respondents towards commission of the crime.
23. Moreover, PW1 deposed in her cross examination that when she tried to save his brother respondent Titoo pushed her and she sustained injuries. However, in support of her claim no medical document was produced by the PW1. PW1 further claimed that she tried to lift her brother and while doing so her clothes got blood stains. Again no Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 11 of 19 explanation was rendered by the prosecution as to why her clothes were not seized and not sent for FSL examination. Even PW2 failed to recognize the colour of the clothes worn by her son and also by her daughter which creates a doubt of her presence at the spot. The story of prosecution is again hard to believe as PW2 in her testimony has deposed that „at the time when I reached the spot, my son was alive and in sense. I also asked my son as to who had caused the injury to which he replied that Ashok, Rohtash, Deepak, Titoo, Rinku & Sheri had stabbed him as he objected to their rash driving in the lane‟. No explanation was rendered by the prosecution as to why deceased has not named the respondents before the PCR officials or before the examining Doctor in the hospital.
24. Undoubtedly, conviction can be based on the sole testimony of an eye-
witness which rule is subjected to the limitation that the testimony of such a witness should be trustworthy and consistent and the court finds it safe to fully rely upon the deposition of such a witness in regard to the nature of the occurrence and the involvement of the accused. In order to test the trustworthiness and consistency of such witness, by way of prudence, the court looks for corroboration from other evidence. It is safe to convict the accused on the testimony of the sole eyewitness only when the testimony of a sole eye-witness is supported by other evidence.
25. The law on the point is well settled that a conviction can be founded upon the testimony of a sole witness if the same inspires confidence, credible and should not leave doubt in the mind of the Court. In Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 12 of 19 Ramnaresh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 257, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under :
"The statement of the sole eye-witness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the Court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime."
26. In Yakub Ismailbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, (2004) 12 SCC 229, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"The legal position in respect of the testimony of a solitary eyewitness is well settled in a catena of judgments inasmuch as this Court has always reminded that in order to pass conviction upon it, such a testimony must be of a nature which inspires the confidence of the Court. While looking into such evidence this Court has always advocated the Rule of Caution and such corroboration from other evidence and even in the absence of corroboration if testimony of such single eye- witness inspires confidence then conviction can be based solely upon it."
27. In Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, AIR (2003) SC 507, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Evidence of solitary eyewitness has to be accepted with an amount of caution and after testing it on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence as recorded. The Hon'ble Suprme Court further stated that Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act does not provide for any particular number of witnesses and it would be permissible for the Court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if evidence tendered Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 13 of 19 by such a witness is credible, reliable, in tune with the case of the prosecution and inspires implicit confidence.
28. In State of Haryana Vs. Inder Singh and Ors., (2002) 9 SCC 537, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that it is not the quantity but the quality of the witnesses which matters for determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. The testimony of a sole witness must be confidence-inspiring and beyond suspicion, thus, leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court.
29. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and after careful examination of the contradictions in the testimonies of above witnesses, we are of the view that the learned trial court has given valid and substantial reasons for disbelieving the depositions of the above two material witnesses. A bare perusal of the above testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly proves that they have made substantial improvements in their depositions from time to time which cannot be overlooked. Hence, we are of the opinion that testimonies of Babita PW1 and Smt. Kalawati PW2 are not trustworthy.
30. PW8 Dr. Arvind Kumar conducted the postmortem and opined that the cause of death was Haemorrhagic shock due to anti mortem injury in heart and lungs produced by single edged sharp weapon. All injuries are ante mortem in nature. Injury No.1 and 2 are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. As per postmortem report deceased sustained injuries measuring 3.2x02 cm with depth of 11.3 cm. Second wound was measuring 2.7x0.3cm with total depth of 11 cm caused by a single edged sharp weapon. He further opined that it Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 14 of 19 is not conclusive as to whether the alleged weapon of offence is the same from which the injuries were caused to the deceased.
31. From the perusal of the medical evidence on record it is difficult to connect the respondents with the alleged crime as the recovered weapon was short in length and the injuries suffered by the deceased were deep in nature.
32. With respect to recovery of two knives (weapon of offence) at the instance of accused Ashok it is observed by trial court that the disclosure statement of Ashok was vague as no specific information regarding the description of knife was given by him. It is further observed that recovery was also defective on the aspect that accused ashok was arrested on 27/03/2008, but recovery was made on 28/03/2008 without any explanation as to why that recovery was not made on the day when the disclosure statement was recorded in the presence of PW1. Arrests of the respondents were also doubtful as the arrests were made at the instance of PW1 Babita and the testimony of Babita itself is not reliable.
33. Our view is also fortified by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas and anr., (2013) 12 SCC 796, wherein it was held as under:
"As is evincible, the High Court has also taken note of certain omissions and discrepancies treating them to be material omissions and irreconcilable discrepancies. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 15 of 19 accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission (See Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana and another, Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of M.P. and Shyamal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal)."
34. In another case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai etc, (2014) 5 SCC 108, it was held that glaring inconsistencies and infirmities in statement of witnesses render their statements unreliable. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
35. In light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 as their testimony was contradictory to what had been deposed by PW3 and PW9. Thus the testimony of PW1 does not corroborate the testimonies of PW3 and PW9.
36. The law with regard to the grant of leave is well settled by a catena of judgments. Leave to Appeal can be granted only where it is shown that the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court are perverse or there is misapplication of law or any legal principle. The High Court cannot entertain a petition merely because another view is possible; there has to be some substance in the grounds urged either in the appreciation of evidence or in material omission of consideration, certain factors or mistaken application of law or any legal principle. The principles are Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 16 of 19 settled by catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and were reiterated in the case of Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 3 SCC 726, stated as under:
1. In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the powers and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal against an order of conviction.
2. The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the evidence on record, or in other words, perverse.
3. Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds not subscribing to the view expressed by the trial court that the accused is entitled to acquittal.
4. In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court.
5. If the High Court on a fresh scrutiny and re-
appraisal of the evidence and other material on record are of the opinion that there is another view which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favors the accused should be adopted.
6. The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial court had the advantage of looking at the demeanor of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court especially in the witness box.
7. The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the accused.
Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 17 of 1937. In an another case of Ramanand Yadav v Prabhunath Jha, 2004 Cri LJ 640, this Court observed that "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 Respondent 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 Respondent and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the Respondent 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 Respondent has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the Respondent committed any offence or not."
38. On an application of the aforesaid principles, we are satisfied that in the present case, the prosecution has not made out a case to grant the leave to appeal and the view taken by the trial court for acquitting both the accused was possible and plausible. Thus trial court has rightly acquitted both the accused. It is well-established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial Court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate Court.
Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 18 of 1939. In the circumstances, the findings and the observations of the Trial Court in this regard cannot be held to be unsustainable or perverse or contrary to record so as to require further consideration and to grant leave to appeal for this purpose. Hence, the petition is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J G.S.SISTANI, J MAY 30, 2016 gr// Crl. L.P. 250/2015 Page 19 of 19