Karnataka High Court
Sri Haneef @ Mohammed Haneef vs The State Of Karnataka By Theerthahalli ... on 28 June, 2012
Author: Dilip B Bhosale
Bench: Dilip B Bhosale
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.V.PINTO
CRL.A.NO.549/2008
C/W
CRL.A.NO.759/2008
IN CRL.A. NO. 549/2008
BETWEEN
1. SRI. HANEEF @ MOHAMMED HANEEF
SON OF HAMMABBA BARRY
AGED 29 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KAMMARADI VILLAGE
KOPPA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
2. SRI. ABOOBEQUER
SON OF HAMMABBA BARRY
AGED 29 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KAMMARADI VILLAGE
KOPPA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT
3. SRI. NAVEEN @ NAVEEN KUMAR
SON OF PUTTAPPA SHETTY
AGED 26 YEARS
RESIDENT OF KAMMARADI VILLAGE
KOPPA TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT ..APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. N. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH AND SRI. P.N. HEGDE,
ADVS., )
2
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THEERTHAHALLI POLICE STATION
SHIMOGA DISTRICT .RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. P.M. NAWAZ, ADDL. SPP FOR STATE)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C. BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
DT: 30.01.2008 PASSED BY THE FAST TRACK (SESSIONS)
COURT NO.I, SHIMOGA IN S.C.NO. 1/2005 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 341 AND 302
R/W SEC 34 OF IPC AND SENTENCED THEM TO UNDERGO S.I.
FOR ONE MONTH AND PAY FINE OF RS. 500/- EACH I.D. TO PAY
FINE FURTHER SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR ONE MONTH
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 341 OF IPC AND FURTHER
SENTENCED THEM TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE AND
PAY A FINE OF RS. 10,000/- EACH I.D. FURTHER TO UNDERGO
S.I. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 R/W SEC 34
OF IPC.
IN CRL.A.NO.759/2008
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THIRTHAHALI POLICE ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.M. NAWAZ, ADDL. SPP FOR STATE)
AND
1. MANJUNATH @ HEBBETTU MANJA
DAKAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
PWD QUARTERS, BASAVANAGUDI, SHIMOGA
3
2. DILIP @ DILIPKUMAR
S/O. RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O. BANDIGADI VILLAGE
KOPPA TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT
3. SHYAMA @ KOKKERE SHYAMA
S/O. YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O. VINOBAA NAGAR
KHB COLONY, SHIMOGA
4. JAGADEESH @ JAGGA
S/O. RAMANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O. CHAWALMANE VILLAGE
KOPPAL TALUK
CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT. ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. DHEERAJ KUMAR, ADV FOR R1, SRI. R.B.
DESHPANDE, ADV FOR R2 & R4, SRI. C.H. JADHAV, ADV
FOR R3)
THIS CRL.A. FILED U/S. 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C. BY THE
STATE P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DT: 30.01.2008 IN
S.C.NO. 1/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, FTC-I,
SHIMOGA & SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL FOR THE OFFENCES - P/U/Ss. 143, 144,
341, 147, 148 AND 302 R/W SEC 149 OF IPC AND CONVICT
AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS-ACCUSED.
THESE CRL.APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORAL JUDGMENT (DILIP B. BHOSALE)
These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2008 rendered by the Presiding Officer, FTC-I, Bangalore, in S.C.No.1/2005. Eight accused were charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 341, 147, 148 and 302 R/w 149 of IPC. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court convicted accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 only for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 R/w 34 IPC and acquitted all other accused of the offences they were charged with.
2. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed an appeal bearing Crl.A.549/08 whereas the State filed an appeal bearing Crl.A.759/08 challenging the impugned judgment whereby accused Nos.5 to 8 were acquitted. Insofar as accused No.3 is concerned, his case was separated from the other accused in view of the fact that on the date of incident he was juvenile.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on an Annual Day Function of Vishwatheertha Girls School at Kammaradi 5 on 24.2.2003, one Venkatesh, Vice President of Taluk Panchayath was murdered by the accused persons. He was invited to attend the function as a Chief Guest. The function started at 5.30 p.m. and it went on till 8.30 p.m. After the function, when Venkatesh was proceeding towards the school, the accused persons, armed with weapons like machu, sword and knife etc., assaulted him and as a result thereof he died on the spot. This incident was witnessed by several persons including PWs.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 13. After the incident, PW1 lodged an FIR with the Theerthahalli Police Station. On the basis of the complaint lodged by PW1, the crime, as aforementioned, was registered against all the accused persons and an investigation was set in motion. During the investigation, statements of several persons were recorded, necessary panchanamas were drawn and several material objects were attached and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on 20/5/2003 against all the eight accused. The case was thereafter committed to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed charges and after recording evidence, convicted accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 6 only for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302 R/w 34 of IPC. Hence, accused nos.1, 2 and 4 against the order of conviction and the State against the order of acquittal, filed these two appeals.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their assistance, gone through the entire evidence on record. The alleged motive for commission of the crime was that the accused persons were involved in smuggling of sandalwood and that Venkatesh, the deceased, was against their smuggling activities and would always advise them not to indulge in illegal activities and on that count, the accused eliminated him on 24.2.3003. The defence propounded by the accused persons in the course of trial is of total denial.
5. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of the accused, examined as many as 27 witnesses and placed several documents on record and so also 22 material objects. Out of the total number of witnesses examined in the case, PWs.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 13 were examined as eyewitnesses. PW7-Sneha is a wife of the 7 deceased. PW19-Dr.Siddangowda conducted post mortem. We would make reference to other witnesses whenever necessary in the later part of the judgment.
6. At the outset, we would like to assess/re- appreciate the evidence of eyewitnesses including the testimony of PW1-complainant. PW1 has stated that, he was present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. The deceased was his cousin. The celebration of Annual Day of the School was at 5.30 p.m. In the function, Venkatesh was invited as Chief Guest and he had addressed the gathering and distributed prizes. He has further stated that lot of poles were erected from the school to the playground for celebration and each of the poles was fixed with tube/lights and the energy was supplied from a generator. After the function got over, at about 8.20 p.m., the deceased started proceeding towards the school. At that time A-1 Haneef, A-2 Aboobequer, A-3 Hamza, A-4 Naveen and 3 - 4 others came from the opposite direction and attacked the deceased Venkatesh. A-1 assaulted Venkatesh with machu on his head and right 8 hand; A-2 assaulted him on the head and cheeks; A-3 hit Venkatesh on his left cheek and head with sword (talwar) in his hand; A-4 stabbed Venkatesh on his right chest with knife; and the other accused assaulted him with talwar, knife and machu. As the accused persons started assaulting the deceased, he rushed towards dais and fell down. He fell on the left side of the road leading to the playground. After Venkatesh fell down, A-4 Naveen threw the knife which was in his hand and fled along with other accused. P.W.1 thereafter, approached Venkatesh and gave him water. However, he died instantaneously. P.W.1 then states that when he gave water to the deceased, apart from others, P.W.6 Rajesh, P.W.4 Ramakrishna and P.W.13 Gurumurthy were also present. P.W.1 then went to the police station and lodged an FIR. He has specifically stated that the accused had grudge against the deceased Venkatesh since he was against their sandalwood smuggling activities.
In the FIR and so also in the examination-in-chief P.W.1 did not name accused nos. 5 to 8. It appears that he was not knowing them and therefore, there was no 9 reason for him to name them in the FIR. After the arrest of accused nos. 5 to 8, a test identification parades were conducted on 24.5.2003 and 27.5.2003. On 24.5.2003 P.W.1 identified accused nos. 5, 6 & 7; and on 27.5.2003 he identified accused no.8 as the same persons who murdered the deceased Venkatesh along with accused nos. 1 to 4.
In the course of investigation, P.W.1 led police and panchas to the spot of incident. P.W.3 and one Venkatesh were also present when the spot panchanama was drawn. From the spot a mobile instrument, note book, coins, mud, chappals, pump shoes and knife were seized (M.Os.1 to 7).
We have carefully gone through the cross-
examination of this witness conducted on behalf of the accused by their respective advocates. It would not be wrong if at this stage itself we observe that in the cross- examination nothing worth considering was elicited. No discrepancies/contradictions/omissions were brought on record during cross-examination of PW1. In fact, he was not even confronted with any portion from the FIR so as to make his testimony doubtful. As a matter of fact, he 10 confirmed everything that he had stated in the examination-in-chief in respect of the actual occurrence. He has stated that there was sufficient light when the incident occurred. Then, he also states about motive for killing the deceased, names of the other witnesses who were present at the time of occurrence. He denied all the suggestions made and the case put by learned counsel for the accused in the course of cross-examination. He denied the suggestion that he had not gone to the function and that he was not present at the relevant time. Insofar as accused Nos.5 to 8 are concerned, he, in all fairness, admitted that he had seen photos of all the accused published in "Vijaya Karnataka", a daily newspaper dated 14.3.2003. In the cross-examination, he was asked several questions on the point as to exactly where the deceased was assaulted and he confirmed that the incident occurred near electric generator, which it appears, was temporarily installed for the said function.
7. We have also perused the FIR and we find that the testimony of P.W.1 is consistent with the FIR. The 11 defence has not brought a single discrepancy / contradiction / omission on record in the course of cross- examination of this witness.
From perusal of the testimony of this witness, we find that his presence at the scene of offence was probable and natural. He has given detailed account of the function as to who were present in the said function as guests, special invitees; how long the function went on, who addressed the gathering, etc. We do not find any reason to doubt his presence, as suggested during cross- examination, at the scene of offence. His evidence was criticized by learned counsel appearing for the appellants solely on the ground that he is an interested witness and his evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated by other circumstances and materials/evidence on record. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Head Master of the school was not examined by the prosecution at all, who as a matter of fact, ought to have lodged an FIR. We do not find any substance in this submission. Merely because complaint was lodged by P.W.1, it cannot be stated that it is false and concocted. 12 Why the Head Master did not lodge complaint, why was he not examined as a witness are not the questions which, in fact, arise in the case or create any doubt about the prosecution case. We are concerned with the evidence of complainant and called upon to find out whether he is truthful/trustworthy witness to form a basis for convicting the accused with or without corroboration.
8. We have perused the deposition of P.W.4. His two daughters were studying in Vishwathirtha School and they were supposed to perform dance in the function. He had, therefore, gone to attend the function and was there right from the beginning till Venkatesh was murdered. He has also given detailed description of the function, as is given by P.W.1, including names of the persons who were present. He named other eye- witnesses as the persons amongst others who were present. Then he has also stated how the incident occurred. We do not find any difference between the statement of P.Ws.1 & 4 so far as actual assault is concerned. He has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all respects. Insofar as accused nos.5 13 to 8 are concerned, he also did not know them and therefore, he could not name them in his statement to the police or before the Court.
In the identification parade, he did identify accused nos.5 to 8. So far as motive is concerned, he has also stated that the accused had grudge against Venkatesh who was against their sandalwood smuggling activities. He denied all the suggestions made/case put in the course of cross-examination. In addition to what P.W.1 has stated in his evidence, this witness has stated about the threats given by A-1 on telephone. For those threats, he had complained to Thirthahalli Police Station.
It has come on record, not only in the evidence of this witness but even the other witnesses, that threats were administered by accused persons to the witnesses for not giving evidence against them and that police complaints were made and on the basis thereof crime was registered. We would make specific reference thereto while considering the evidence of P.W.6 Rajesh.
In the course of cross-examination of P.W.4, only one contradiction / omission was brought on record. It 14 was marked as Ex.D-4. In the statement recorded by the police, he had stated that when Venkatesh was going ahead of generator, he was attacked. Whereas, in the examination-in-chief he did not say so with reference to generator. Except this minor omission, nothing further was elicited in the cross-examination conducted by different advocates appearing for the accused so as to either disbelieve or discard evidence of this witness. Merely because no specific reference to the generator was made in examination-in-chief, it cannot be stated that he was not present and that he did not see the occurrence.
9. P.W.5 Prabhakar Shetty also attended the Annual Day celebration and was present when the incident occurred. He had gone to attend the function with one Gopal. He also wanted to meet Venkatesh to discuss about some transaction. After the function got over, he has stated in detail as to how the incident occurred and he also corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 4. In the cross-examination nothing worth was elicited so as to disbelieve him insofar as the actual incident and the exact 15 spot of incident is concerned. In the cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that he had told to the police that Venkatesh was going in front of generator. His attention was invited to the statement recorded by the police wherein he has stated that "when Venkatesh was going ahead of generator" (Ex. D-8), except this contradiction nothing further was elicited so as to doubt his ocular version.
10. It is well settled that every contradiction / omission need not necessarily be fatal to the prosecution case but it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and that such contradictions / omissions have to be seen in the background of probabilities of the prosecution case and veracity of the witness. In case the evidence of prosecution witnesses is above board and unimpeachable and inspires confidence, in that event the contradictions / omissions here and there may have no value at all unless there is a false implication of even one of the accused. None of the contradictions / omissions / discrepancies so far proved / brought on record in the 16 present case, in our opinion, could be termed as fatal to the prosecution case. So far evidence of all the witnesses seems to be natural and probable and they cannot be stated to have made any efforts to implicate any of the accused falsely.
P.W.6 Rajesh also attended the Annual Day celebration. He was invited for the programme. He has
also stated who where the other persons invited for the function and then he has given the detailed account of the occurrence. He corroborates the depositions of P.Ws.1, 4 & 5 in all material aspects. He also named 4 accused and since he did not know others, he identified them in the test identification parade. In addition to whatever other eye- witnesses have stated in their evidence, this witness in reply to some of the questions asked to him, in the cross- examination stated about his testimony in C.C. No.1726/2003. This case was initiated on the basis of the complaint made by him for the alleged threats given to Ramakrishna, the witness (P.W.4) in the present case. The trial of that case was concluded before the trial in this case and hence he was confronted with his deposition in 17 that case in the cross-examination. He had deposed in C.C. No.1726/2003, that he had not seen the murder of Venkatesh and that the accused had not threatened. He had also given evidence in C.C. No.502/03 and in that case also he deposed that none of the accused had given threatening calls to him. However, in the present case, he denied that he was giving false evidence in those cases. In the re-examination by the Public Prosecutor, P.W.5 stated that in Tirthahalli Court he deposed that he did not see the murder of Venkatesh out of fear. He, however, has confirmed that he had seen the incident. He also made reference to the threats to his life from the brother of A-7 and A-5. It would be advantageous to reproduce the answers given by him during re-examination by the Public Prosecutor. The relevant paragraph no.21 reads thus:
" I stated in Thirthahalli Court that I did not see Venkatesh murder out of fear for my life, but it is true that I have said that I have seen the murder. We had threat from 7th accused brother Anand and 5th accused even in Kappa Court due to life threat. We stated 18 nobody has caused life threat to us. In this regard I have stated in N.R. Pura Court, we have not given any complaint again since we fear problem again. Now we have come with police protection, we have asked protection as we have threat to give evidence, hence we asked protection from CPT Thirthahalli."
(emphasis supplied) The defence could not bring any discrepancy / contradiction / omission on record so as to disbelieve this witness. Though we find that his testimony also corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 & 5, even if his evidence is kept aside, we have examined testimonies of P.Ws.1, 4 & 5, so far, which support the prosecution case in all respect and we find them truthful / trustworthy. It is well settled that once the eye-witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy and if it further finds support from other evidence, their evidence can form the basis for conviction. In other words, the testimonies of 1 - 2 eye witnesses, out of 3 - 4 eye witnesses are not found to be credible / trustworthy, does not mean that evidence of the other eye witnesses cannot be the basis for convicting the accused. Quality of the evidence is material and not the 19 quantity. It is well settled that if the evidence of even one eyewitness is found to be cogent, credible and trustworthy, it could form the basis for conviction.
11. The prosecution examined one Subramanya - P.W.2 as eye-witness. In examination-in-chief he has also stated as to how the incident occurred and what was the role played by each of the accused. However, in the cross- examination he was confronted with the portions of his statement recorded by the police which were marked as Ex.D-1, D-2 and D-3. The contents of D-1 are "at that time I heard people shouting. I also came running and saw Venkatesh had fallen in a pool of blood and he was battling for life". The contents of D-2 read thus: "on learning from the people". Before police he stated that on learning from the people he came to know as to who assaulted the deceased. Thus, the omission is only to the effect "on learning from the people". Insofar as, Ex.D-3 is concerned, before the police he had stated that "he came to know that Naveen had thrown the knife after assaulting the deceased". This he has denied while deposing before 20 Court. These contradictions / omissions in our opinion, create doubt whether he witnessed the actual assault. It does not inspire confidence. Even if evidence of this witness is discarded completely, still in our opinion the prosecution case insofar as ocular version is concerned, as observed earlier, stands proved.
12. There is yet another eyewitness, P.W.13 - H.L. Gurumurthy. He has stated that he had taken his children for the Annual Day celebration. He also has given detailed account as to how the incident occurred. However, he named A-1 & 2 only. He has not named A-4 in his deposition. Though he did not name A-4, he stated that 7
- 8 persons were the assailants who attacked Venkatesh. The permission sought by the prosecution to declare him hostile and to cross-examine him was turned down by the learned Judge. This witness has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the programme and he did not see the incident. He was also confronted with the police statement wherein he had stated that " I had gone there along with Krishnappa, Rajappa and others" (Ex. D-11). 21 He was confronted with this portion to show that he had not taken his children to the function. This in our opinion would not help the defence to prove that this witness was not present at the scene of offence and that he was not invited.
13. It is well settled that the marginal variance between the statement of the prosecution witness recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and the testimony given in the Court, cannot be dubbed as improvements made with any sinister motive. Such are the elaborations elicited by the Public Prosecutor during the examination-in- chief. It is the prerogative of the Public Prosecutor to elicit such points from a witness as he deems necessary for the case. In criminal cases, the Court cannot proceed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a mechanical way. The broad features of the prosecution case, the probabilities and the normal course of human conduct of a prudent person are some of the factors which are kept in mind while evaluating the merits of the case. 22
14. In addition to the ocular evidence, the prosecution has brought other circumstantial evidence on record to lend support to its case, viz. recovery of articles on the basis of voluntary statements made by the accused, test identification parade and medical evidence. Insofar as recovery is concerned, voluntary statements of accused nos.1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 were recorded on 17.3.2003 bearing Ex. Nos.30 to 36 and at their instance the weapons used in commission of crime, M.Os. 15 to 19, were recovered from the house of accused no.7. All these articles / weapons were kept in a gunny bag (M.O.20). This all was recovered by drawing a panchanama bearing Ex.P-5. None of the articles had blood stains when they were recovered.
Insofar as accused no.4 is concerned, there was no question of recovery of any weapon at his instance since it has come in the evidence of all eye-witnesses that he had thrown the weapon used by him at the scene of offence. It has also come on record that accused nos.1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 were absconding for almost a month after the occurrence and they were arrested in connection with CR. No.211/2003 in the State of Kerala. Investigating Officer 23 in the present case when learnt about their arrest, got them produced before the learned Magistrate on the basis of body warrant on 17.3.2003 and on the very same day their voluntary statements were recorded and mahazar Ex.P-5 was drawn. The medical evidence also supports the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1, 4, 5, 6 & 13. Dr. Siddanagowda P.W.19 has described all the injuries suffered by the deceased. He sustained 25 injuries and almost all were either incised or stab. The doctor has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by the weapons used in commission of the crime. Thus, the recovery to some extent and the medical evidence supports the prosecution case, insofar accused nos. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned.
In the circumstances, so far as the appeal filed by original accused nos. 1, 2 & 4 is concerned, it is dismissed.
16. That takes us to consider the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the remaining accused. The only evidence placed on record by the prosecution to connect these accused with the alleged 24 incident is in the nature of recovery of weapons and test identification parade. Insofar as recovery of articles is concerned, as we have already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, none of the articles were having blood stains recovered at the instance of the accused. The articles recovered at the instance of these accused (A-5 to A-8) cannot be stated to be incriminating in the absence of other evidence in support thereof. Recovery of articles in any case is not substantive evidence and it can only be used as corroborative evidence.
Insofar as test identification parade is concerned, it was conducted in 2 parts. On 24.5.2003, P.W.20 - D.B. Chandrashekar, the Tahsildar, conducted identification parade to identify accused nos.5, 6 & 7, whereas on 27.5.2003 it was conducted for identifying accused no.8. Identifying witnesses were P.Ws.1, 4 & 6. It is pertinent to note that accused nos.5 to 8 were produced before the Magistrate by virtue of body warrant on 17.3.2003 and the test identification parade was conducted after more than 2 months thereafter. No explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution explaining the delay in conducting the test 25 identification parade. It has also come on record that photographs of these accused were published in "Vijaya Karnataka" daily newspaper on 14.3.2003. One of the witnesses viz. P.W.1 clearly admitted in his cross- examination that he had seen the photographs of all the accused in the said newspaper. Apart from the fact that the test identification parade is not substantive evidence and it can only be used as corroborative evidence, it is also well settled that if the witnesses had any opportunity to see the accused prior to the identification parade, test identification parade loses its significance and it becomes untrustworthy.
17. The learned Judge after having considered the delay in conducting the test identification parade and holding that the accused had an opportunity to see the photographs of the accused persons published in the newspaper has given benefit of doubt to these accused. None of the eye-witnesses named accused nos. 5 to 8 in their depositions. Moreover, P.W.1 in the complaint even did not give description of these accused nor did he state 26 that he would identify them if they are shown to him. That apart, it is pertinent to note that the charge sheet in the present case was filed on 20.5.2003, whereas test identification was conducted thereafter, namely on 24.5.2003 and 27.5.2003. Only on the basis of evidence in the nature of recovery of articles at the instance of these accused, in our opinion, the order of acquittal cannot be converted into an order of conviction. We do not find any substantial and compelling reasons to set aside the order of acquittal. The view taken by the trial Court is plausible and deserves no interference. Keeping that in view and considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court to be observed while dealing with the powers under section 378 of Cr.P.C., we are satisfied that the appeal preferred by the State also deserves to be dismissed. Order accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE Tl/Sak