Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Rajesh Kumar on 23 November, 2016
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 278 of 2014
Date of Decision: November 23, 2016
.
State of H.P. ...Appellant.
Versus
Rajesh Kumar ...Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge.
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1No.
Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional
For the Appellant :
rt Advocate General and Mr.Vikram
Thakur, Deputy Advocate General,
for the appellant-State.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate,
for the respondent.
Sanjay Karol, J.(oral)
Assailing the judgment dated 01.03.2014, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 14-B/VII/13/10/ S.T. No.1/14, titled as State Versus Rajesh Kumar, whereby accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 22. It is the case of prosecution that in the month of March 2008, deceased Pinki Devi was married to accused Rajesh Kumar. Soon after the marriage, accused .
started maltreating her for having brought insufficient dowry. As a result of the alleged maltreatment and cruelty, on 16.05.2009, deceased hanged herself, resulting into her death. On 17.05.2009, police was of informed of the incident. Inspector Mast Ram (PW.10), who conducted the investigation, recorded statements of Ravi Kumar (PW.1), Pratap Singh (PW.4) and Dhian Singh rt (PW.5), which led to the registration of FIR No.61/2009, dated 17.05.2009 (Ex.PW.8/A), under the provisions of Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, H.P. Prior thereto, initial Rapat No.15(A), dated 17.05.2009 (Ex.PW.9/A ), was also recorded by the police.
Postmortem of dead body was conducted by Dr.H.S. Sabharwal (PW.6), who opined the deceased to have died as a result of asphyxia. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, Challan was presented in the Court for trial.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 33. Accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, to which he did not plead guilty .
and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of of Criminal Procedure w as also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led.
rt
5. Trial Court, after appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses acquitted the accused on all counts . Hence the present appeal.
6. We have heard Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, learned counsel, on behalf of the respondent, and have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 4 and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the s ame, .
resulting into miscarriage of justice.
7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon of the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients so as to rt constitute the charged offence.
8. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36, Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under:
"(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under S. 417, Criminal P.c., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 417, Criminal P.c. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words:
"Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 5 limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, 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 presumptio n 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 of arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and rt will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice." "
9. Certain facts are not in dispute: (a) relationship of the accused and deceased as husband and wife; (b) their marriage having been solemnized in the month of March 2008; (c) deceased having committed suicide in the matrimonial house on 16.05.2009; and (d) such death took place within seven years of marriage.
10. Prosecution is required to prove that after such marriage accused subjected the deceased to cruelty as a result of which she committed suicide on 16.05.2009, at about 6.15 PM, at village Simbal.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 611. Law with regard to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and abetment to commit suicide, so as to fall within the scope of Section .
306 of the Indian Penal Code is now well settled.
12. It is a settled position of law that there should be reasonable nexus between cruelty and suicide. It has to be substantiated, established and proved on record.
of Cruelty by itself would not amount to having committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. A reasonable nexus has to be established between cruelty rt and the suicide in order to make good the offence of cruelty under the penal laws. Cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide.
Suicide alone would not establish that it was occasioned on account of cruelty which was of sufficient gravity so as to lead a reasonable person placed in similar circumstances to commit suicide. Mere assumption or demand of dowry by itself in given circumstances may not amount to cruelty. The harassment has to be with a definite object i.e. to meet any unlawful demand. Every act of cruelty is not punishable. There must be evidence to show that soon before the death the victim was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 7 subjected to cruelty or harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of natural or accidental death so as to prove that the death had occurred otherwise than in .
normal circumstances. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If the incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become of stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.
13. In Girdhar rt Shankar Tawade vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177, the Apex Court has held that "the basic purport of the statutory provis ion is to avoid 'cruelty' which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto. In order to ascribe a meaning to the word 'cruelty' as is expressed by the Legislatures: Whereas explanation (a) involves three specific situations viz , (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity, in explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the Legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 8 obviously as the legislative intent expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in .
terms of the provisions of the statute since the same would also embrace the attributes of 'cruelty' in terms of section 498 (A)." .... .... ....
"Section 498-A is attributed only in the event of proof of cruelty by the husband or the relatives of of the husband of the woman Admittedly, the finding of the trial court as regards the death negated suicide with a positive finding of accidental death. rt If suicide is left out, then in that event question of applicability of explanation (a) would not arise -
neither the second limb to cause injury and danger to life or limb or health would be attracted in any event the willful act or conduct ought to be the proximate cause in order to bring home the charge under section 498 (A) and not de-hors the same. To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of a charge under section 498-A. Explanation (b) of Section 498-A in no uncertain terms records harassment of the woman and the statute itself thereafter clarifies it to the effect that it is not every such harassment but only in the event of such a harassment being with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 9 or any person related to her to meet such demand
- there is total absence of any of the requirements of the statute in terms of section 498 (A)." .....
..... ......
.
... ... "Charges under sections 306 and 498-
A of the Indian Penal Code are independent of each other and acquittal of one does not lead to acquittal on the other."
"To have an event sometime back cannot be termed to be a factum taken note of in the matter of of a charge under section 498-A The legislative intent is clear enough to indicate in particular reference to explanation (b) that there shall have to be a series of acts in order to be a harassment rt within the meaning of explanation (b) The letters by itself though may depict a reprehensible conduct, would not however, bring home the charge of section 498-A against the accused Acquittal of a charge under section 306, as noticed hereinbefore, though not by itself a ground for acquittal under section 498-A, but some cogent evidence is required to bring home the charge of section 498-A as well, without which the charge cannot be said to be maintained."
14. In Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Apex Court has also held that Sections 498-A and 306 IPC are independent and constitute different offences. Though, depending on the facts and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 10 a woman to cruelty may amount to an offence under section 498- A and may also, if a course of conduct, amounting to cruelty is established leaving no other .
option for the woman except to commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide. However, merely because an accused has been held liable to be punished under section 498-A IPC it does not follow that on the same of evidence he must also and necessarily be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the woman concerned. rt
15. In Sushil Kumar Sharma. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 281, the Apex Court has held as under:
"10. The object for which Section 498-A IPC was introduced is amply reflected in the Statement of Objects and Reasons while enacting the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 46 of 1983. As clearly stated therein the increase in the number of dowry deaths is a matter of serious concern.
The extent of the evil has been commented upon by the Joint Committee of the Houses to examine the work of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In some cases, cruelty of the husband and the relatives of the husband which culminate in suicide by or murder of the helpless woman concerned, constitute only a small fraction ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 11 involving such cruelty. Therefore, it was proposed to amend IPC, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "CrPC") and the Evidence Act suitably to deal effectively not only with cases of .
dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to married women by the husband, in -laws and relatives. The avowed object is to combat the menace of dowry death and cruelty.
11. One other provision which is relevant to be noted is Section 306 IPC. The basic difference of between the two sections i.e. Section 306 and Section 498 -A is that of intention. Under the latte r, cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the woman concerned to commit suicide, rt while under the former provision suicide is abetted and intended.
19. The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.
Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreak personal vendetta or unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 12 complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of .
dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin's weapon. If the cry of "wolf is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual of "wolf appears. There is no question of the investigating agency and courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to rt dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty. It cannot be lost sight of that the ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at the truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any preconceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalised a statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the courts is that of a watchdog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally undisputable that in many cases no ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 13 direct evidence is available and the courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
.
16. In State of West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Apex Court has held as under:
"In a criminal trial the degree of proof is stricter than what is required in a civil of proceedings. In a criminal trial however intriguing may be facts and circumstances of the case, the charges made against the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and the rt requirement of proof cannot lie in the realm of surmises and conjectures. The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not stand altered even after the introduction of S. 498A, I.P.C and S. 113A of Indian Evidence Act. Although, the court's conscience must be satisfied that the accused is not held guilty when there are reasonable doubts about the complicity of the accused in respect of the offences alleged, it should be borne in mind that there is no absolute standard for proof in a criminal trial and the question whether the charges made against the accused have been proved beyond all reasonable doubts must depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidences adduced in the case and the materials placed on record. The doubt must be of a reasonable man and the standard adopted must ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 14 be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject matter.
The conscience of the court can never be .
bound by any rule but that is coming itself dictates the consciousness and prudent exercise of the judgment. Reasonable doubt is simply that degree of doubt which would permit a reasonable and just man to come to a conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the nature of of the offence to be investigated. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be rt made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent.
Letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law."
[Emphasis supplied ]
17. In the very same decision the Apex Court further cautioned that the court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 15 common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in .
a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty.
of
18. In Arun Vyas & anr. Vs. Anita Vyas (1999) 4 SCC 690, the Apex Court has held that the essence of offence in Section 498-A is cruelty. It is a continuing rt offence and on each occasion on which the wife is subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation.
19. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact. The impact of complaints, accusations or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim concerned, the social background, the environment, education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from person to person depending on the intensity of sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to withstand such mental cruelty. In other ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 16 words, each case has to be decided on its own facts to decide whether the mental cruelty was established or not. [Mohd. Hoshan A.P. & Anrs. Vs. State of A.P. (2002) .
7 SCC 414].
20. In State of A.P. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582, the Apex Court has held as under:
"It is plain that as per clause (b ) of the of Explanation, which, according to learned counsel for the State, is attracted in the instant case, every harassment does not amount to "cruelty"
rt within the meaning of Section 498-A I.P.C. The definition stipulates that the harassment has to be with a definite object of coercing the woman or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand. In other words, for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. harassment simpliciter is not "cruelty" and it is only when harassment is committed for the purpose of coercing a woman or any other person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for property etc., that it amounts to "cruelty" punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C."
21. In Balram Prasad Agrawal Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 338, the Apex Court has held cruelty to mean torture to be so unbearable in the common course of human conduct that a young lady having commitments to life could take a drastic steps to end her ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 17 life leaving behind her infant children in the lurch and at the mercy of the accused husband who was found to be in contemplation of remarrying.
.
22. In Arvind Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2001) 6 SCC 407, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The word 'cruelty' in common English acceptation denotes a state of conduct which is painful and distressing to another. The legislative of intent in Section 498-A is clear enough to indicate that in the event of there being a state of conduct by the husband to the wife or by any relative of rt the husband which can be attributed to be painful or distressing. The same would be within the meaning of the section. Torture is a question of fact. There must be a proper effort to prove it."
23. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The accused must by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct create such circumstances that the deceased is left with no other ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 18 option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the .
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. [Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618]
24. The concept of cruelty and its effect varies of from individual to individual, also depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs.
rt "Cruelty" for the purposes of constituting the offence under the aforesaid section need not be physical. Even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty an d harassment in a given case. [Gananath Pattnaik vs. State of Orissa, (2002) 2 SCC 619]
25. Prosecution evidence has to be appreciated in the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position.
26. To establish the charged offences, Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, invites our atten tion to the testimonies of Ravi Kumar (PW.1), Pratap Singh (PW.4) and Dhian Singh (PW.5).
27. Before we deal with the same, we would first record that immediately after the occurrence of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 19 incident, Bayasa Devi (PW.3), was the first one to have seen the deceased and the accused , together at the spot of crime. She categorically states that on 16.05.2009, at .
about 6.30 PM, she heard cries coming from the house of accused. She immediately went there and saw the deceased hanging with the rope, from the wooden girder.
The accused, who was present there, was weeping.
of
28. According to the opinion of Expert, i.e., Dr.H.S. Sabharwal, who has proved on record postmortem report (Ex.PW.6/B), deceased died due to asphyxia by hanging.
rt
29. Save and except for the ligature mark, no other mark of injuries were found on the body of the deceased.
30. It is a matter of record, as is evident from the testimonies of Ravi Kumar (PW.1), Pratap Singh (PW.4) and Dhian Singh (PW.5), that on the very day itself, accused informed the relatives of the deceased about the incident. This was, as is so admitted by Pratap Singh, at about 6.15 PM.
31. It is also evident from the statement of the complainant (Ex.PW.4/A), that relatives of the deceased had immediately reached the matrimonial house.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 2032. Record reveals that incident came to be reported to the Police by Ravi Kumar (PW.1), which led the police to record Rapat on 17.05.2009 at 9.45 AM .
(Ex.PW.9/A). Now significantly in the said Rapat, what remains disclosed is only that deceased died under "suspicious circumstances". The factum of alleged acts of cruelty and abetment never came to be disclosed to of the police at the first instance.
33. Be that as it may, when we peruse the testimonies of Ravi Kumar, Pratap Singh and Dhian Sin gh, rt we find them to have only deposed that within eight months of marriage, deceased was subjected to maltreatment and harassment by the accused on account of dowry demands. But such assertions , as stand disclosed and is evident, are absolutely bald , vague and unspecific with regard to time, place and manner.
34. One cannot ignore the admission made by these witnesses , wherein they categorically admit that at the time of engagement or marriage no demand, much less dowry demand, came to be made by the accused. In fact, Ravi Kumar (PW.1) goes to the extent of stating that even after marriage, no dowry demand ever came to be ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 21 made from him. Significantly, he is uncle of the deceased. Her father had already died and her mother, as has come in the testimonies of these witnesses , was .
suffering from mental ailment. Testimonies of these witnesses further reveal that marriage came to be solemnized against the wishes of the deceased, who in any case was disturbed on account of ailment of her of mother.
35. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the rt charge of cruelty mental or physical.
36. In order to establish the ingredient of "soon before" the incident, that the deceased was subjected to mental/physical cruelty, again our attention is invited to the testimonies of Pratap Singh (PW.4) and Dhian Singh (PW.5), who do state that about 1 ½ months prior to the death, deceased had telephonically informed about the alleged demands made by the accused. Again except for bald assertions, there is nothing on record to substantiate such fact. What was the nature of such demand?
Whether it was met or not? remains unexplained. In any event, we do not find such version to be true, for the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 22 reason, that all these witnesses admit of never having reported the incident to the authorities or brought it to the notice of anyone of the family members. Also their .
version appears to be uninspiring in confidence, for the reason that these witnesses had been themselves visiting the house of the deceased , finding her to be happily residing there. Also on such visits, no grievance of any of nature was made by the deceased or they ever counseled the accused, asking him to mend his ways.
37. We may also observe that the Investigating rt Officer, during the course of investigation, also found no complaint to have been lodged with anyone.
38. Thus, to our mind, prosecution has not been able to establish by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that accused being the husband of deceased Pinki Devi subjected her to cruelty and harassment with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security and also abetted her to commit suicide.
39. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP 23 that judgment of the Court below is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into .
miscarriage of justice.
40. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed of Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94, since it cannot bert said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case.
For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the trial Court be immediately sent back.
(Sanjay Karol), Judge.
(Vivek Singh Thakur ),
November 23, 2016 Judge.
(Purohit)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:36:32 :::HCHP