Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Kishori Lal on 4 April, 2016
Bench: Sanjay Karol, P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2012 Reserved on : 14.3.2016 .
Date of Decision : April 4, 2016 State of Himachal Pradesh ...Appellant.
Versus
Kishori Lal ...Respondent.
of
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, Judge.
rt Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Appellant :
1
Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate, and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Vashista, Advocate.
Sanjay Karol, Judge State appeals against the judgment dated 3.12.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.21-7 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kishori Lal, challenging the acquittal of respondent Kishori Lal (hereinafter referred to as the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:35 :::HCHP
...2...
accused), who stands charged for having committed offences, punishable under the provisions of Sections 376, 342, 498 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
.
2. It is the case of prosecution that accused was running a tailoring shop at Padyalag Chowk in District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Complainant Madan Lal (PW-
1), who was employed with him as a tailor, was suffering of from physical disability of the legs and as such could walk only with the support of crutches. On 23.7.2009, accused rt came to the house of Madan Lal, where both of them had drinks. At about 10.30 p.m., when Madan Lal went out to urinate, accused forcibly took the prosecutrix (PW-2) to his shop where he subjected her to rape. Finding neither the accused nor his wife (prosecutrix) to be home, Madan Lal searched for them at different places. Eventually, he went to shop of the accused and by peeping in saw both the accused and the prosecutrix in a naked condition.
Complainant then went to the shop of Prakash Chand (PW-3) and asked him to come. Noticing Madan Lal to be on the spot, accused came out and gave beatings with the crutches. Thereafter, Madan Lal telephonically reported the matter to the police. Vijay Kumar (PW-5) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:35 :::HCHP ...3...
prepared a report, and the police party reached the spot, where ASI Anant Ram (PW-15) recorded statement (Ex.PW-1/A) of Madan Lal, which led to registration of .
case FIR No.103, dated 24.6.2009, for commission of offences, punishable under the provisions of Sections 376,342 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station, Bharari, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Prosecutrix of as also Madan Lal were got medically examined from Dr. Bharti Ranout (PW-9) and Dr. Bhanu Kanwar (PW-12),
3. rt respectively.
During the course of investigation, clothes worn by the prosecutrix were taken into possession and alongwith the vaginal swab sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Report of the Laboratory (Ex.PW-9/C) was taken on record.
4. Investigation revealed that prosecutrix was suffering from 40% mental disability. Record of her treatment/examination was also taken on record.
5. 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 20:02:35 :::HCHP
...4...
6. Accused was charged for having committed offences, punishable under the provisions of Sections 376, 342, 498 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, to which .
he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses and statement of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of of Criminal Procedure, was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication.
8. rt Based on the testimonies of the witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offences. Hence, the present appeal by the State.
9. We have heard Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Kush Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Senior Advocate, duly assistant by Mr. Dheeraj Vashista, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:35 :::HCHP ...5...
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 and proper .
appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice.
of
10. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an rt accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence.
11. 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. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:35 :::HCHP
...6...
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 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 of conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such rt matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice." "
12. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from the weakness of the case of defence. There must be proper legal evidence and material on record to record the conviction of the accused. Conviction can be based on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...7...
sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance to her testimony. However, in case the court has reason not to accept the version of prosecutrix on its .
face value, it may look for corroboration. In case the evidence is read in its totality and the story projected by the prosecutrix is found to be improbable, the prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected.
of
13. It is a settled principle of law that testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient enough to convict the accused if rt it inspires confidence. (See: Rajesh Patel Versus State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791 and State of Rajasthan Versus Babu Meena, (2013) 4 SCC 206).
14. The Courts while trying an accused on the charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses which are not of a substantial character.
15. However, even in a case of rape, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove, affirmatively each ingredient of the offence it seeks to establish and such onus never shifts. It is no part of the duty of the defence ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...8...
to explain as to how and why in a rape case the victim and other witness have falsely implicated the accused. Prosecution case has to stand on its own legs and cannot .
take support from the weakness of the case of defence. However great the suspicion against the accused and however strong the moral belief and conviction of the court, unless the offence of the accused is established of beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of legal evidence and material on the record, he cannot be convicted for an rt offence. There is an initial presumption of innocence of the accused and the prosecution has to bring home the offence against the accused by reliable evidence. The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. (Vide: Tukaram & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra, (1979) 2 SCC 143; and Uday v. State of Karnataka, (2003) 4 SCC 46.
16. It stands established on record that Madan Lal is suffering from physical disability. He could walk only with the help of crutches. Disability is in the lower part of his body. It is also not in dispute that Madan Lal was married to the prosecutrix who were residing in village Dhangot, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...9...
Himachal Pradesh. That Madan Lal was working for the accused and doing the work of tailoring is also not in dispute. That the accused was having a tailoring shop at .
Padyalag Chowk is also not in dispute.
17. It is contended that at the time of occurrence of the incident, prosecutrix was suffering from mental ailment to the extent of 42% and that by taking of advantage thereof, accused committed the heinous crime. At the threshold, we must clarify the prosecution rt not to have established the factum of disabled mental state of the prosecutrix.
18. Prosecution has placed on record disability certificate (Ex.PW-19/A), which reveals that prosecutrix was suffering from mental retardation to the extent of 42%. The cause being seizure disorder. Such certificate was prepared on an application moved by Madan Lal for availing social security benefits. Dr. S.K. Soni (PW-19) and Dr. Subhash Sharma, as Members of the Medical Board issued the certificate. In Court, they have clarified that the patient, i.e. the prosecutrix, was examined on 3.4.2008. Also that a patient suffering from seizure is abnormal only during the period of seizure attack, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...10...
otherwise he leads a normal life and is in a position to understand his welfare. Significantly, prosecutrix was never treated by these witnesses, either prior to the .
issuance of the certificate or thereafter.
19. It has come on record that prosecutrix was taking treatment for her mental ailment, from Dr. Vijay Kumar (PW-16) since November, 2007. However, from of the testimony of this witness, it cannot be ascertained as to whether immediately prior or subsequent to rt 23.7.2009, i.e. the date of the incident in question, prosecutrix was suffering from such mental disorder or for that matter on 23.7.2009, she suffered any epileptic attack or not. Crucially, this witness admits that he was treating the prosecutrix only on the basis of past history, so narrated to him and further while under his treatment, she never suffered any attack of seizure(s). He clarified that the treatment given to the prosecutrix, as per OPD slips (Ex. PW-16/B to 16/J), was based only on previous medical history.
20. Investigating Officer (PW-15) also admits that in the early part of investigation, neither the complainant nor the prosecutrix, revealed anything about mental ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...11...
ailment. When we peruse the testimony of Dr. Bharti Ranout, the doctor who medically examined the prosecutrix on 24.7.2009, we find such fact not to have .
been disclosed to her. In fact MLC (Ex.PW-9/B) does not reveal the factum of the mental ailment of the prosecutrix to have been recorded therein.
21. From the testimony of prosecutrix as also her of husband, it is clear that she has studied upto middle standard and later given up higher studies only for the rt reason that she could not clear her exam in the subject of mathematics. Crucially, Madan Lal admits his wife to be wise. Though he states that she is suffering from mental ailment since childhood but even he did not take her to the hospital for treatment of any epileptic attack. He further clarifies that such attacks occur only during sleep for a certain duration, and soon the position normalizes.
22. Significantly, even from the statement of the prosecutrix or her husband, it cannot be inferred, even remotely, that as on the date of the incident, she was suffering from any such epileptic attack.
23. Thus, it stands established on record that as on the date of occurrence of the incident, prosecutrix ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...12...
cannot be said to be under any mental retardness or ailment, for having suffered any epileptic attack. She was normal, during her work of daily routine and cooked .
food for all.
24. Dr. Bharti Ranout, on an application (Ex.PW- 9/A) moved by the police, examined the prosecutrix and issued MLC (Ex. PW-9/B), which stands proven on record.
of As per the opinion of the doctor, as has also come in her deposition, prosecutrix may have had sex with the accused.
rt But then, this was prior to the incident in question. Also, with reference to the incident, no marks of injury, struggle, contusion or abrasions were found on any part of the body of the prosecutrix. Significantly, the alleged incident took place late in the night of 23.7.2009 and she was immediately examined on 24.7.2009 at 4.30 a.m. As per report of the Chemical Analyst (Ex.PW-9/C), no semen was found on the slides of the vaginal swab. The doctor opined there were no signs of recent penetration. The doctor found no signs of struggle or marks of violence on the body of the prosecutrix. The doctor gave her opinion dated 15.9.2009 (Ex.PW-9/D) only on the basis of past medical record. The clothes, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...13...
which the prosecutrix was wearing at the time of occurrence of the incident, were taken into possession by the police and no tear or telltale signs found thereupon.
.
Corroborative evidence does not support the prosecution case.
25. We now proceed to discuss the other ocular evidence.
of
26. Complainant Madan Lal states that on 23.7.2009, at about 10.30 p.m., accused came carrying urinate.
rt liquor, which they consumed in his house. He went out to On return, found neither the accused nor his wife. Thinking that his wife might have gone out (where, he does not does not state), he waited for some time. Only when she did not return, he went to the shop of the accused. Though the shop was closed but from the shutter, he could peep in and see the accused and his wife in a compromising position. They were naked. He knocked at the shutter and called for his wife, but none came out. After waiting from some time, he again repeatedly knocked at the shutter, but without any response. Soon he went to the shop of Prakash Chand and woke him. However, on his asking returned to the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...14...
spot. Then the accused opened the shutter, snatched his crutches and gave beatings, by which time Prakash Chand also came and rescued him. On his request, .
Prakash Chand telephonically reported the incident at Police Station, Bharari but before the police could arrive, accused ran away. He got his statement (Ex.PW-1/A) recorded. He also learnt from his wife that the accused, of after gagging her mouth, had forcibly taken her away from his house. Subsequently, in the hospital, relatives rt of the accused got signed certain papers, both from him and his wife for which purpose, he was also taken to the Tehsil Office. Well, this is all what he says in his examination-in-chief.
27. But, when we examine the cross-examination part of his testimony, we find his version to be highly unbelievable, improbable and apart from self contradictory, to have been contradicted by Prakash Chand, who, in any case, has not supported the prosecution. In no uncertain terms, this witness states that "it is correct that I cannot say that my wife had gone voluntarily with the accused. Self stated that my wife had disclosed to me that she had been taken by force by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...15...
the accused". Now, the place where he had gone to urinate is just 10 feet from his house. His wife never struggled or raised voice. She is a healthy lady. She did .
not resist the alleged overt actinos. His version of having banged the shutter of the shop of the accused and loudly called for his wife and the accused, for more than 3-4 hours is uninspiring in confidence, for it has come in his of testimony that there are 40-50 shops at village Padyalag and none responded to his calls. Significantly, even as rt per his version, he did not disclose to Prakash Chand that the accused had subjected his wife to forcible sexual assault or that he had seen them in a compromising position. He promptly called Prakash Chand. What for? he does not state. All that he states is that he went to call Prakash Chand.
28. Further, he categorically admits that "Parkash Chand had come to save me when we had quarreled. When Parkash Chand had come to the spot the time might be 2.30-2.45 a.m. because I cannot tell the exact time as I was not having watch at that time. I have rang up police at 2.45 a.m. Self stated that Parkash Chand also rang up the police. Thereafter, when he saw ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...16...
accused beating me". Thus, it appears that there was a quarrel between the accused and Madan Lal, cause of which was certainly not the prosecutrix. What was the .
exact cause, prosecution has not been able to decipher. In fact, police admits presence of a third person on the spot. This was at the time of quarrel. Who was that third person, prosecution has not been able to explain. The of Investigating Officer records presence of such person, but feigns ignorance about his name and as has come in the rt testimony of the prosecutrix, this third person had also consumed alcohol.
29. Further, the version of Madan Lal of having peeped in through the shutter does not appear to be correct. He wants the Court to believe that though the shutter was down but from the space between the shutter and the edge of the floor, he was able to see the accused and the prosecutrix in a compromising position. But then the spot map clearly belies such version, for it is apparent that in the front portion of the shop, there were sewing material and machines were lying. According to the police, the alleged offence took place in the rear portion of the shop, which could not have been visible ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...17...
from the place where the accused peeped in. Further none has established that at the time of occurrence of the incident, the light of the shop was on. Though the .
witness wants the Court to believe such fact, but such version, in view of his contradictory statement is not believable. His wife remained inside the shop for more than three-four hours. He did not wake up any of neighbour. He did not call the police. It is not the case of this witness that all the while, accused had gagged the rt mouth or tied her hands. He only states that the accused gagged her mouth at the time she was forcibly taken away from the house. Medical evidence belies such fact. The witness did not report the matter to the local residents. Why so? remains unclear. Prosecution story of having recorded the statement of this witness on the spot stands contradicted. He states that "Our statements were recorded in the police station at 6.00 a.m.". He admits to have been first taken to the police station at 3.30 a.m. and then to the hospital at 3.45 a.m. Only on his return did the police record his statement. Thus, he contradicts his version of having informed the police or got his statement recorded on the spot. He admits that ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...18...
while he was shouting and raising hue and cry, his wife did not respond. Also his wife did not intervene when the accused was giving beatings to him.
.
30. The Court is still duty bound to examine the testimony of the prosecutrix and if her version is found to be trustworthy, inspiring in confidence, and the witness to be reliable, the Court would not hesitate to convict the of accused, for the charged offences. This can be done solely on the strength of such version.
31. rt In Court, prosecutrix states that on 23rd day, which was a Thursday, accused came to their house with a bottle of liquor. While she was cooking food, both her husband and the accused consumed liquor. When her husband went out to urinate, accused caught her by the arm and took her to his shop, where, after closing the shutter from inside, by switching on the light, forcibly removed her clothes and made her lie on the floor. After closing her mouth, accused raped her thrice. Her husband came and called for her. After some time, accused opened the shutter of the shop and by snatching the supports (crutches) of her husband, gave him beatings. Prakash Chand, who arrived on the spot, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...19...
rescued him. When enquired, she narrated the incident to her husband, who called the police from the cell phone of Prakash Chand. With the arrival of police on the spot, .
she was taken to the hospital and got medically examined. She handed over clothes worn by her to the doctor. After few days, relatives of the accused approached her and offered `12,000/- for not giving any of statement. Also, under pressure, she agreed to sign certain papers.
32. rt However, in the cross-examination part of her testimony, she admits that "One more person was accompanying Kishori Lal and my husband and Kishori Lal and the third person had consumed liquor together" .......
"It is correct that they had consumed liquor for about half an hour". Now, who is this third person? Whether he was present at the time when Madan Lal had gone to urinate or at the time accused forcibly took her? remains unexplained. None has come forward to explain the same. He was the best person to have deposed the events which transpired on the spot. Her version of not raising any alarm, for being gagged from the mouth, is uninspiring in confidence. It is not that the accused had ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...20...
threatened her. Her husband was urinating just at a distance of 10 feet from her house. She did not resist any overt acts of the accused. No marks of injury, on .
account of gagging, or struggle were found on her mouth or body. It is not that her hands were tied. She could have resisted the acts of the accused, which she did not do so. She admits not to have raised any alarm all along of the way, right upto the shop of the accused. Even thereafter, no attempt was made to leave, for the hands.
rt accused had to open the shutter of the shop with both his She had ample time and opportunity to raise alarm or escape which she without any justifiable reason failed to do so.
33. But crucially what belies her version of the accused having forcibly taken her away is her admission to the effect that "It is correct that all the three persons consumed liquor and were not able to walk".
34. She admits her husband having an argument with the accused. All this was while she was in her house. Now, this totally probablizes the defence of false implication and the subsequent story being cooked up, which fact finds strength from the deposition of Vijay ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...21...
Kumar (PW-5), who states, "a telephone was received in the police station that a quarrel had taken place in Padyalag chowk, therefore, police party headed by ASI .
Anant Ram had gone to the spot and reached there at 3.00 a.m.".
35. This also takes us to the question as to why the incident of rape was not reported to the police at the of first instance.
36. Further, prosecutrix admits that "I did not rt sustain any injury on my persons. My clothes were not torn. The floor of the shop was kacha. There was no semen on my clothes. I came to the shop of the accused on foot. During this period I did not quarrel. I visited the shop of accused on that day" and what totally knocks down the prosecution case of sexual assault is her admission to that "I never slept with the accused Kishori. It is incorrect that I disclosed to the doctor that I had already slept with the accused before this incident. It is correct that my husband saw me with the accused inside the shop that is why I disclosed all facts".
37. Further, the witness admits that "After the quarrel my husband became unconscious as he was ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...22...
under the influence of liquor. On the next day he regained senses. We did not talk with each other as my husband was unconscious". Now, all this has rendered .
the testimony of the witness to be unbelievable, self- contradictory, improbable and inconsistent.
38. She wants the Court to believe that on account of drunkenness, none of the three persons could of walk and her husband passed out as a result thereof. She wants the Court to believe that the accused forcibly rt took her and raped her thrice and all this happened within half an hour. She also wants the Court to believe that the accused gave beatings to her husband with the crutches. Which version of hers is to be believed has become difficult.
39. Further, the delay in not immediately reporting the matter to the police and her statement not being recorded on the spot, but only after medical examination, has rendered her version to be doubtful, inconsistent and improbable. The witness cannot be said to be reliable.
40. She admits not to have known the relatives of the accused or the accused having offered any money to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...23...
her. Thus on what basis did she states that the relatives of the accused pressurized her to take money and sign papers. Where are those papers? Why no complaint was .
lodged with the police or action taken by them against such of those persons who were trying to influence the course of investigation, remains unanswered on record.
41. Now, when we examine the testimony of of Prakash Chand, we find him not to have supported the prosecution. He was extensively cross-examined, yet rt nothing fruitful could be elicited by the Public Prosecutor. Prosecution, through his testimony, wants the version of Madan Lal and the Prosecutrix to be corroborated, which versions we have found to be unbelievable. When we examine the testimony of this witness, we find that some quarrel took place between the accused and Madan Lal, who were under the influence of liquor. He nowhere records presence of the prosecutrix on the spot, but records presence of his son who incidentally has not been examined in Court.
42. We find that testimony of the prosecutrix (Ex. PW-18/A) was also recorded before the Judicial Magistrate, but then even this does not help the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...24...
prosecution, for such statement alone, recording of which is proved by Shri Ranjit Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ghumarwin (PW-18), ipso facto, would not .
establish the prosecution case to have been proven on record. In any event, it was recorded on 28.5.2010, more than 10 months after the occurrence of the incident. Why it was not so done promptly, remains unexplained of on record. Possibility of the witness (the prosecutrix) being tutored, cannot be ruled out and the initial version rt disclosed by Madan Lal, in terms of his statement (Ex. PW-1/A), is not corroborated by Vijay Kumar (PW-5).
43. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused committed rape on the prosecutrix without her consent and against her will, after wrongfully confining her in his shop, knowing that she is the wife of complainant Madan Lal, and also caused simple hurt to Madan Lal.
44. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP ...25...
Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties.
45. 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 Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94, it cannot of be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of rt the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. ground for interference is called for. The present appeal No is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.
Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.
( Sanjay Karol ), Judge.
( P.S. Rana ),
April 4, 2016(sd) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:36 :::HCHP