Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Thakor Mangaji ... on 27 February, 2015
Author: K.J.Thaker
Bench: K.J.Thaker
R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 214 of 1998
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)
Versus
THAKOR MANGAJI GALAJI....Opponent(s)/Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS CM SHAH, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR PR NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 27/02/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar Page 1 of 13 R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT dated 17.01.1998 rendered in Sessions Case (Old) No.65/1993 and Sessions Case (New) No.6/1996, whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the original accused-opponent herein of the charges for the alleged offences.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 29.12.1992, the accused, with an intention to marry with the victim, took the victim in the rickshaw without her consent from the custody of the complainant. Therefore, a complaint was lodged being I-C.R.No.3/1993 with Dabhoda Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").
3. After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") committed the said case to the Court of learned Page 2 of 13 R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar, which was, thereafter, numbered as Sessions Case (Old) No.65/1993 and Sessions Case (New) No.6/1996. Since the opponent-accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, he was tried for the alleged offences.
4. At the time of trial, in order to bring home the charges leveled against the original accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as well as the prosecution also produced 2 documentary evidences.
5. At the end of the Trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar acquitted the accused of all the charges leveled against him. On completion of the trial, the Sessions Court passed the judgment and order acquitting the opponent-accused.
Page 3 of 13
R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
7. Learned APP, vehemently, submitted that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that the accused has committed offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC by kidnaping her from the possession of the complainant against her will and therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the alleged offences. She further submitted that the learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the accused has taken her form the possession of the complainant against her will and the said facts are supported by the deposition of the complainant, Udaji Chaturji at Exh:11, wife of the complainant Cheharben Udaji at Exh:15, Kailashben Vithalji at Exh:32, prosecution witness Bachuji Chaturji at Exh:45 and victim at Exh:14. All these witnesses were present at the time of commission of offence. The Page 4 of 13 R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT learned APP, further, submitted that this Criminal Appeal is required to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. As against that, learned advocate for the opponent-accused supported the judgment and order of the Trial Court submitting that the same was passed after appreciating the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution. Hence, no interference is called for with the same at the hands of this Court. Therefore, the criminal appeal is required to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is required to be confirmed.
9. I have heard learned APP for the appellant- State and the learned advocate for the accused and perused the material on record with their assistance.
10. In view of the above, I have to appreciate Page 5 of 13 R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT the facts in this case from the touchstone of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court laying down guidelines for having acquittal appeals.
11. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of 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."
12. Further, in the case of CHANDRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2007 (4) S.C.C. 415), the Apex Court laid down the following principles; Page 6 of 13
R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT "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
Page 7 of 13
R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT
on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
13. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even 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.
14. Even in the case of STATE OF GOA Vs. SANJAY THAKRAN & ANR. (2007 (3) S.C.C. 75), the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. 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 Page 8 of 13 R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT 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."
15. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases of 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.
16. In the case of LUNA RAM VS. BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS. ((2009) SCC 749), the Apex Court in Paras-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.Page 9 of 13
R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT
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."
17. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of MOOKKIAH AND ANR. VS. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU (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 choosing 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, Page 10 of 13 R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT 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]"
18. 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."
19. In the recent decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHIVASHARANAPPA AND OTHERS V/S. STATE OF KARNATAKA (JT 2013 (7) SC 66) has held as under:
"That appellate Court is empowered to re-appreciate 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."Page 11 of 13
R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT 20. I find that the Trial Court, while
considering the evidence on record, has rightly acquitted the accused. The Trial Court has observed that there are various discrepancies in the evidence produced by the prosecution. The Trial Court has doubted the veracity of the investigation. There are loopholes in the evidence and investigation which has been observed by the Trial Court. Moreover, the incident is of the year 1992 and I do not find any strong ground to reverse the decision of the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the Trial Court is not required to be disturbed.
21. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused of the charge leveled against them are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or Page 12 of 13 R/CR.A/214/1998 JUDGMENT infirmity has been committed by it. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and the findings arrived at by the Trial Court. No interference is warranted with the judgment and order of the Trial Court.
22. In view of the above discussions, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and order.
Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
23. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 17.01.1998 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bonds of the accused, if any, stands discharged. R & P be sent back to the concerned Trial Court, forthwith.
(K.J.THAKER, J) rakesh/ Page 13 of 13