Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Govindbhai L
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
STATE OF GUJARAT....Appellant(s)V/SGOVINDBHAI L PADIYAR (APPEAL ABATED) R/CR.A/867/1990 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 867 of 1990 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA ========================================= 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= STATE OF GUJARAT Versus GOVINDBHAI L PADIYAR (APPEAL ABATED) & ORS ========================================= Appearance: Ms Chetna M Shah, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Appellant - State ABATED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1 Dismissed for want of prosecution for Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 7 Mr Apurva A Dave, for the Respondent(s) No. 4 6 - Absent ========================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 15/01/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA)
1. Heard Ms.Chetna M Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
The above referred Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the State of Gujarat appellant herein, against the judgement and order of acquittal delivered by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No.179 of 1989 dated 14th June 1990, whereby the respondents herein being accused came to be acquitted by the trial court for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code.
It may be noticed at the threshold that apart from the fact that respondent No.1 herein died during the pendency of the trial, the present appeal qua respondents Nos.2, 3 and 7 came to be dismissed for want of prosecution as per order dated 22nd August 1992. Thus, the present appeal is confined to respondents Nos.4 to 6 only, namely, Dinesh @ Ramprasad Punamchand, Kalia @ Chunilal Arjunji Thakore and Karsanbhai @ Gadhadi Gulabhai Choudhary respectively.
Ms Chetna M Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State is heard extensively at this stage. We have gone through the record and proceedings of the trial court throughly.
As per the prosecution case in the complaint, which was given by the original complainant Ambalal Parshottamdas Prajapati a train robbery is said to have taken place at Kodiyar Railway Station situated within Ahmedabad District at about 5.15 AM on 31st December 1988. According to the complainant, he is resident of village Kokarwad, Taluka Patan and went to Bombay for his business purpose and returned to Ahmedabad on 30th December 1988 by Gandhidham Express at about 12.30 midnight. At that time, he was accompanied by Mr J.M. Patel. He, thereafter, boarded Train No.120 Down (Patan local) at about 3 AM along with his said friend for proceeding towards Patan and occupied upper berth in general coach and placed his luggage viz one suitcase and one shoulder bag near his head. When the said train stopped at Khodiyar Railway Station 5-6 persons entered the coach wherein the complainant was travelling. As per the case of the complainant, out of aforesaid 5-6 persons, two persons sat near his head and two persons sat near his legs on the same berth and the persons sitting on his head side started snatching the suitcase whereupon the complainant asked them as to why they are taking away his suitcase. At that time, all the four persons started beating the complainant and one person who was wearing long coat took out a Gupti and pointed it at the chest of the complainant and asked him to give everything that he has to the accused persons. It is the case of the complainant that those four persons had snatched away his suitcase and a golden ring, which he was wearing at the relevant point of time, and had alighted from the running train. As per the case of the complainant, the suit case contained two pairs of clothes, currency notes worth Rs.1500/- and eight sweet packets each weighing 500 gms. Thus, according to the complainant, the accused persons had robbed him of his aforesaid goods along with one golden ring worth Rs.3,500. When the train reached Kalol Railway Station, he lodged his complaint before Railway Police at Kalol.
This complaint came to be transmitted to Sabarmati Police Station for taking further action and accordingly necessary FIR came to be registered as C.R.No.I 81 of 1988 at Sabarmati Railway Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 398 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of the prosecution is that apart from the complainant, one Mr Karamshibhai Prabatbhai Rabari, who was travelling in the said train for going to Kadi, came to the place of incident, but the accused persons threatened him by showing knife. According to the case of the prosecution, said Karamshibhai had seen accused Nos.4 and 6 who pointed out Rampuri knife and then got down from the train along with suitcase.
Initially, the investigation was conducted by one Shri Dalpatsinh Nanubha Vaghela, PW No.18, but as no fruitful result was achieved, Shri Dattatreya Govindbhai Barot, PW No.20 undertook the further investigation. On 6th January 1989 he arrested accused No.1 and during his interrogation said witness came to know about other six accused persons. He further disclosed that the coat which he wore at the time of the incident was lying at his home and that the Gupti used in the commission of offence was sold to one Chandrakant Raval. Therefore, Shri Barot, PW No.20 summoned two panchas and recovered the coat from the residence of accused No.1. On 7th January 1989 custody of accused No.4 Dinesh @ Ramprasad Punamchand and accused No.5 Malia @ Chunilal Arjunji Thakore was obtained through transfer warrant and they came to be arrested by him. At the instance of those two accused persons he recovered one bag and empty sweet boxes under the panchnama at Exhibit 38. The said witness also recovered golden ingot, which, according to the case of the prosecution, is formed after melting the golden ring by the goldsmith who purchased it from the accused No.1. On 10th January 1989 said witness recovered Gupti from one Chandrakant Raval, which is said to have been sold to him by accused No.1, under panchnama at Exhibit 33. The said witness has also recovered clothes from Darpan Laundry as per panchnama at Exhibit 86. The said witness also arranged for the Test Identification Parade of five accused persons before the Executive Magistrate. According to the said witness, accused No.2, during the course of interrogation in the remand obtained in connection with I. C.R.No.81 of 1988 registered with Sabarmati Railway Police Station for the offences under Sections 392, 398 and 114 of IPC disclosed about the theft of silver ring belonging to the complainant, which was sold to Soni Punamchand Kapurchand and accordingly the said silver ring was recovered under the panchnama at Exhibit 62.
After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of the learned 3rd Joint Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur. The said Court committed the case to the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court framed charge at Exhibit 9 to which accused persons denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined 20 witness to prove the charge and also prove the documentary evidence which is mostly in the form of panchnamas drawn during the course of investigation. In the examination under Section 313 of the Code accused Nos.4 to 6 filed written statement at Exhibit 111 to 113 respectively, inter alia, stating that they came to be arrested in this offence under transfer warrant and before Test Identification Parade came to be held before the Executive Magistrate, the complainant was introduced to them. Further, the complainant and all the accused persons were brought together at Mirzapur Court where TI Parade was held by the Executive Magistrate.
Before the trial Court the prosecution relied upon the direct evidence of the complainant to prove the incident in question and further to support this evidence the prosecution has also relied upon the oral evidence of Karamshibhai Prabatbhai Rabari , PW No.14 who was present in the coach in which the incident of dacoity took place. The prosecution has also relied upon oral evidence of PW No.8, Executive Magistrate before whom the TI Parade was arranged wherein accused Nos.1 to 5 were identified by the complainant. Lastly, the prosecution has also relied upon the circumstantial evidence against accused No.1 about recovery of coat, gupti used in the robbery and golden ingot. The other circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution before the trial court was recovery of one bag and empty packets of sweets recovered from the place shown by the accused and also information disclosed by the accused regarding the silver ring, which was subsequently sold by accused No.1 to one Soni Punamchand Kapurchand of Kalol and the last circumstance to bring home charge against the accused persons is recovery of robbed clothes from Darpan Laundry, which were recovered at the instance of Accused No.7 under panchnama Exhibit 86.
The trial Court, after detailed consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court dealt with the complaint of the complainant and evidence of PW No.14 Karamshibhai Rabari and panchnama of the Test Identification Parade at Exhibit 48 and also recoveries effected at the instance of accused Nos.1, 3 and 7.
Learned APP for the State took us through the relevant evidence on the record and urged that the order of acquittal is against the evidence on record and as per the submission of the learned APP, the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the complainant s evidence and laid much emphasis on the place of the berth inasmuch as observing that 3 to 4 persons could not sit in one berth if the complainant is already sleeping on the said berth. As per the further submission of the learned APP, the evidence of the complainant with regard to the incident in question is further corroborated by the evidence of PW No.14 Karamshibhai Rabari and also further supported by the TI Parade panchnama at Exhibit 48.
The crucial question is whether the prosecution has proved its case as against the respondents and more particularly respondents Nos.4 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt. We may observe that the offence of the nature with which we are concerned in the instant case is committed more often than not by the persons who are unknown to the victims and such an offence does not fall within the category of those offences where the accused out of revenge and enmity commit the offence. In such cases, of course, the identity of the accused persons is not a problem. But, in the case where the offence is usually committed by the unknown persons with a criminal background, it is only in rare cases that they are known to the victim. In most of the cases of such nature, the accused person is unknown person and the only evidence which may connect the accused persons with the crime is the evidence of the identification in a TI Parade and in some cases evidence of recovery of articles which are subject matter of robbery. Therefore, cases of robbery mostly depend upon such evidence.
In order to examine the contentions raised by the learned APP, we will take up direct evidence of the complainant and PW No.14 Karamshibhai Rabari so as to find out whether the accused persons are the real culprits or not. The evidence of the complainant is recorded below Exhibit 55. As per his deposition, on the day of the incident, early in the morning he occupied the upper berth in the general coach of Patan Local train and at that time he had one bag and one shoulder bag. According to this witness, he kept the shoulder bag below his head and the other bag besides him and his friend Jaiprakash Mohanlal took sleeping pills and slept on the berth opposite side. It is his specific evidence that there was no one in the coach in which he and his friend were travelling and the said train started early morning at about 4.30 AM from Kalupur Railway Station, Ahmedabad. When the said train stopped at Khodiyar Railway Station he woke up and saw 5-6 persons entering into the compartment out of which two persons sat near his legs and two persons near his head. According to him, when he removed his shawl, he saw other three persons standing in the coach. As the said train started, one of the persons tried to snatch away his bag which was kept besides him. The complainant asked him as to why he is snatching his bag whereupon one person who was standing opposite to him slapped him and the complainant was told in Hindi as to why he was shouting. According to the complainant, when he shouted for help, the person who was wearing long coat took out gupti and pointed it to his chest because of which he got frightened. Further, the person who pointed gupti towards complainant asked the complainant to give away whatever that is lying in his pocket and the said person took away the golden ring weighing about one tola from the finger of the complainant. According to the complainant, after coming the act of robbery, all the accused persons alighted from the moving train and on hearing his shouts, PW No.14 Karamshibhai came there from the nearby compartment in which he was travelling and as the said witness had attempted to snatch away one of the bags from the accused persons, he was shown knife. As per the further case of the complainant, as the complainant got afraid, he did not pull the chain and when the train stopped at Kalol Railway Station, he, along with PW No.14 Karamshibhai Rabari and TTE approached the railway police and lodged the complaint.
On perusal of his cross-examination, it is deposed that when the complainant was sleeping on the upper berth in the coach, two persons sat near his legs and two persons sat near his head on the same berth per se appears to be unnatural and unbelievable because, he, in terms, admits that at the same time, when he was sleeping his head was touching the window of the coach. If he is sleeping on the upper berth, there would never be any space left for four persons sitting as stated hereinabove. In paragraph 15 of the evidence of the complainant, he has categorically stated that 7-8 persons entered into the coach in which he was travelling when the train stopped at Khodiyar Railway Station whereas in the complaint at Exhibit 56 the complainant has stated that about 5-6 persons entered the coach. Therefore, with regard to number of persons who entered into the coach the evidence of the complainant is not consistent. Further, the complainant s version that accused Nos.5 to 7 were standing in the coach while other accused persons were engaged in committing the robbery appears to be a got up story. These aspects of facts are missing in the complaint at Exhibit 56 which amounts to contradiction and so it could be said that the complainant has not seen the incident in question. In the complaint at Exhibit 56 itself the complainant has stated in detail the part played by the four accused persons in committing the dacoity and in the last paragraph of the complaint the complainant has stated that four unknown persons, by showing gupti, robbed him of his bag and golden ring. This clearly shows that only four persons were involved in the offence of dacoity. So, the number of persons involved in the offence differs in the evidence and complaint exh.56.
At this stage, it is also relevant to look into the evidence of PW No.14 Karamshibhai Rabari wherein he has stated that after train left Khodiyar Railway Station two persons alighted from the train after taking away the suitcase of the complainant. In short, the said witness did not say that there were seven persons were present in the coach at the time of the incident or he saw seven persons in the coach and more particularly at the place where the complainant and his friend were sleeping. Similarly, it is also required to be noted that though he identified accused Nos.6 and 7, but he omitted to state before the police that one person shown him knife after taking it from other person and further that knife was a Rampuri knife. Thus, there are material omissions of facts in the evidence of PW No.14 Karamshibhai Rabari and if at all both these witnesses witnessed the incident in question, they would naturally have stated so in their statements before the police. On the entire reading of the evidence of PW No.14, he does not support the case of the prosecution that seven persons have committed the offence and all of them were present in the coach wherein the dacoity took place. It is also significant to note herein that the complainant has stated in his evidence as to what part was played by accused Nos.1 and 3, but he does not state in his evidence as to what part was played by accused Nos.2 and 5 in committing this offence. The complainant has categorically denied that the amount of Rs.1500 was in his suitcase. In his oral evidence the complainant has stated that amount of Rs.1500 was in his packet of the pant and accused No.1 robbed him of his money, whereas in the complaint the complainant has stated that the amount of Rs.1500 was lying in the suitcase. This is a material omission which makes the story of the prosecution doubtful. Thus, we find that the evidence of the prosecution is inconsistent and contradictory and the contains material omissions as discussed hereinabove and further the evidence of PW No.14 Karamshibhai Rabari also contains material omissions and contradictions. Thus, the evidence of PW No.14 Karamshibhai Rabari does not support evidence of the complainant regarding incident in question. We have also not found the evidence of this witness corroborating the evidence of the complainant.
Now, it is right time to look into the evidence of PW No.8 Kantibhai Barot, Executive Magistrate before whom the Test Identification Parade was arranged. According to the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, recorded below Exhibit 96 he has stated that he has received the yadi at Exhibit 47 from the concerned police regarding identification of the accused in this offence. We have found that the said witness directed his peon that the complainant be allowed to sit in a separate room and has also instructed his peon to call 15 persons from outside having same and similar age and structure of that of the accused persons. After completing the aforesaid formalities, he himself has arranged the position of the accused persons along with said 15 persons in the queue. Prior to it, the Executive Magistrate has not taken any precaution to see that the complainant does not get any opportunity to see the accused persons before the Identification Parade is conducted. For want of this precaution, identification of the accused by the complainant becomes weak and suspicious. Further, as per the evidence of the Executive Magistrate, he has deposed that the average age of accused persons were 22-24 years whereas he had asked the peon to call persons who are in the age-group of 22-35 years. On perusal of the panchnama, it seems that out of 15 persons, two persons are aged above 50 and 68 years respectively. Suffice it to refer to the age of the person at serial No.4 who is aged 68 years and age of the person at serial No.9 is 50 years whereas the age of the persons at serial Nos.2, 6 and 14 was 33, 35 and 32 years respectively. Thus, out of those 15 persons, the persons at serial Nos.2, 4, 6, 9 and 14 cannot be said to be of equal age or similar age of the accused persons facing the trial. So far as structure of 15 persons is concerned, there is no evidence and nothing is mentioned about their body structure in the panchnama so as to ensure fair and proper identification. In our considered opinion, the Test Identification parade was neither fair or beyond suspicion because, the persons called by the Executive Magistrate were not of similar age and there is no iota of evidence that the said 15 persons were having similar body structure as that of the accused persons. Apart from this, it is an admitted position that the complainant failed to identify accused No.5 in the Court and accused No.6 before the Executive Magistrate when TI Parade was held. No TI Parade was arranged for PW No.14 Shri Karamshibhai Rabari. Thus, in our opinion, the Executive Magistrate failed to take required precautions for fair and proper conduct of TI parade. Therefore, the evidence of PW No.8 Kantibhai Barot, Executive Magistrate is not reliable.
Lastly, the prosecution has relied upon certain circumstantial evidences against the accused persons regarding recovery of muddamal articles alleged to have been robbed at the time of committing the offence of dacoity. According to the prosecution, at the instance of accused No.2 one bag was recovered. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that the bag which was robbed away was of green colour having cross design whereas the bag, which was found at the place shown by accused No.2 is of khakhi colour. Further, in the discovery panchnama, the bag which was alleged to have been discovered at the instance of accused No.2 was of blue colour. Similarly, the complainant did not mention anything about the silver ring in the complaint. Yet, according to the prosecution case, when accused No.2 was arrested in another offence being C.R.No.8 of 1989 registered with Ahmedabad Railway Police Station for the offence under Section 392 of IPC and according to him during the remand period accused No.2 informed that he had sold one silver ring to one Soni Punamchand Kapurchand of Kalol and thus the said ring was produced by said Soni Punamchand Kapurchand and accordingly recovery panchnama at Exhibit 62 was prepared. It is significant to note that when accused No.2 gave information about silver ring, he did not give name of the goldsmith or his address and he simply told that he would take the police to the place where he sold the ring. Surprisingly, the Investigating Officer did not deem it fit to draw the panchnama under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and therefore no reliance can be placed on such so called recovery. Further, the ring which was recovered by the police bore letters VA whereas the concerned Investigating Officer admitted in the cross-examination that in the panchnama it is mentioned that one silver ring bearing letter V on it was recovered. Thus, there is discrepancy about the description of the silver ring apart from the fact that the complainant has not mentioned the fact that the said silver ring was in the bag.
As far as selling of clothes of the complainant by accused No.7 to Somaji Saluji, PW No.11 is concerned, the Investigating Officer has stated in paragraph 14 that when he enquired from the said witness Somaji Saluji he did not give name of accused No.7, but the said witness Somaji Saluji informed the Investigating Officer that the person whose finger of hand was amputated had sold the clothes to him. It requires to be noted that accused No.7 came to be arrested after 22nd February 1989 and the police seized the muddamal on 10th January 1989. PW No.11 Somaji Saluji in terms deposed that he has not informed anyone about the purchase of pants and shirts and nobody has questioned him about the same. Under the circumstances, the question arises as to how Investigating Officer, Shri Pathak came to know about selling of pants and bush-shirts to PW No.11 Somaji Saluji by accused No.7. Thus, the seizure of clothes of the complainant becomes doubtful and unreliable.
In nutshell, the evidence of the complainant Ambalal Parshottambhai, PW No.13, recorded below Exhibit 55 and eye witness, Karamshibhai Rabari, PW No.14 is not natural one and reliable one to connect the accused persons with the commission of the crime as alleged in the complaint and the oral evidence adduced before the trial court. Similarly, identification of the accused persons by the complainant during the TI Parade was not satisfactory and unreliable one and more so accused Nos.6 and 7 were never put up for identification by the prosecution and no TI parade was arranged for their identification. Even the circumstantial evidence against accused Nos.1, 2 and 7 about recovery of muddamal fails to connect the accused persons with the offence of dacoity as alleged against them. In any event, the direct evidence of the complainant is not corroborated by any reliable and independent evidence including alleged circumstantial evidence of recovery effected at the instance of accused Nos.1, 2 and 7.
When we found that the complainant has alleged offence of robbery against four unknown persons, the offence under Section 391 of IPC does not survive, then, learned APP urged that even if the prosecution fails to prove its case under Section 391 of IPC, then the case as projected through oral and documentary evidence, occurrence of offence of robbery under Section 390 of IPC requires to be considered. We have no doubt in our mind that if the prosecution fails to prove major offence based on the evidence, if accused persons are found guilty of any minor offence, then the Court should consider the prosecution case accordingly. However, on overall analysis of the evidence as adduced by the prosecution in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the occurrence of the incident as alleged either with the help of the direct evidence of the complainant or with the help of TI parade arranged by the Executive Magistrate and also so called recoveries of looted articles alleged to have been recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1, 2 and 7. In sum and substance, the learned trial court has rightly recorded its findings for acquitting the accused persons of the offence. Therefore, it is not safe to record conviction of respondents Nos.4 to 6 based on such unreliable and contradictory evidence with regard to the occurrence of the incident and further improper and unfair TI parade held by the Executive Magistrate. So, we do not accept the alternative submission to consider the case u/s 390 of IPC as entire evidence is untrustworthy and unreliable.
It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible then also appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. (See Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225). In the instant case, the learned APP has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable.
In the case of RAM KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA, reported in AIR 1995 SC 280, Supreme Court has held as under:
The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal."
24. It is well-settled principle of law that if two views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court unless there are compelling reasons to do so. In this regard, broad proposition of law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Brahm Swaroop And Another v. State of U.P., (2011) 6 SCC 288 more particularly, paragraph 38 is relevant for the disposal of this appeal. Therefore, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
38. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence.
Interference with the decision of the trial court in a routine manner, where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for such interference.
25 It may be noted that this is an acquittal appeal in which Court would be slow to interfere with the order of acquittal. Infirmities in the prosecution case go to the root of the matter and strike a vital blow on the prosecution case. In such a case, it would not be safe to set aside the order of acquittal, more particularly, when the evidence has not inspired confidence of the learned trial Judge. As this Court is in general agreement with the view expressed by the learned trial Judge, it is not necessary for this Court either to reiterate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or to restate reasons given by the learned trial Judge for acquittal and in our view, expression of general agreement with the view taken by the learned trial Judge would be sufficient in the facts of the present case for not interfering with the judgment of the learned trial Judge and this is so, in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GIRJA NANDINI DEVI AND OTHERS V. BIJENDRA NARAIN CHAUDHARI, AIR 1967 SC 1124 and STATE OF KARNATAKA V. HEMA REDDY AND ANOTHER, AIR 1981 SC 1417.
26. On overall reassessment and reappreciation of evidence, this Court is satisfied that there is no infirmity in the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge for acquitting the accused. Suffice it to say that the learned trial Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused and the learned A.P.P. has failed to dislodge the reasons given by the learned trial Judge and convince this Court to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned Judge.
27. Seen in the above context, we do not find any valid reason or justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused of the offences with which they were charged. Hence, the appeal deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) (S.H.VORA, J.) *mohd Page 25 of 25