Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Pravinbhai Ramjibhai Jogal on 20 November, 2024
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 281 of 2000
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PRAVINBHAI RAMJIBHAI JOGAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 20/11/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case No.99 of 1995 on Page 1 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined 20.12.1999. By the aforesaid judgement, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent-accused of the offenses punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 30.09.1995, at around 15:00 hours, the accused at his house, had sprinkled kerosene on the deceased Manishaben Pravinbhai-the wife of the accused, causing her death by burns. According to the prosecution, the motive of the accused was that he had a doubt that his wife had an illicit relation with the distant relative. The accused was tried for offenses under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. In pursuance of the investigation, a First Information Report was lodged with the Bagasara Police Station for the offenses Page 2 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During the investigation, several statements were recorded of the witnesses, various panchnamas were drawn including the panchnama of the scene of the offense. Medical evidence was collected for proving the case of the prosecution.
4. Upon committal of the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, the Sessions Judge framed charges vide Exh.2 against the respondent-accused for the aforesaid offenses. The respondent-accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution had examined 14 witnesses and produced various documentary evidences. The details of the evidences led by the prosecution are as under:
Relevant Oral Evidences PW Exh Pg. Name Remarks Relevant No. No. No. Para Page 3 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined Judgment/ Pg.No. 1 7 51 Dr.AS Vadher, P.M.-relevant para Issue-1-
Amreli Civil 7-Pg.No.54. pg.156, Issue-2- Para14, pg.159 2 10 61 Natwarlal Panch of Scene of Para-
Nandalal Offence. 20,pg.171
3 12 67 Kirtilal Panch Inquest-
Harjivandas Hostile
4 14 74 Lilaben Jilubhai Panch Inquest-
Hostile
5 15 76 Alabhai Panch Clothes of
Devdanbhai deceased
6 17 79 Bhalubhai Panch of Arrest and
Nanjibhai condition Accused-
Does not support
prosecution case,
signed prepared
panchanama as per
cross-examination.
7 20 85 Jayaben Mother of Para-17,
Bavbhai Mansukhbhai-who pg.164
had alleged illicit
relationship with
deceased
8 23 95 Mansukhbhai Alleged Illicit Para-18,
Bavanjibhai relationship with pg.168
deceased. Cousin of
deceased
9 26 102 Govind Relative Para-22,
Dosalbhai pg.171
10 29 105 Dadubhai PSO- Amreli City Para-22,
Suragbhai Police Station, does pg.171
not know about non-
recording of DD.
11 36 114 Laljibhai H.C. Recorded Para-16,
Arjanbhai complaint of the pg.161-163
deceased-
Page 4 of 29
Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
contradictions and
unclear whether she
could speak or not.
Admits no DD could
be recorded-relevant
pg.115-116
12 39 120 Kiritsinh PSI, Bagasra- Does Para-23,
Bapalsinh not support pg.172
prosecution case
and gives version of
accident as narrated
by negihbors.
13 48 139 Dr.Prahlad Dr. Who treated Para-17,
Manilal Patel. deceased and pg.166
accused for burn Para-
injuries. 19,pg.170
14 56 144 Dr.B.L. Dabhi Dr. Who treated
accused for burn
injuries.
Documentary Evidences
Exh.No. Pg.No. Details
2 44 Charge-Frame
5 49 Muddamal list.
8 56 PM Note-Report
18 81 Arrest
Panchanama
40 124 Station Diary-
Amreli
49 141 Pravin Ramji injury
certificate.
50 142 Ramji Jetha injury
certificate.
57 145 Certificate MO
Amreli
5. The prosecution examined these witnesses
Page 5 of 29
Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024
undefined
including the Medical Officer and the police witness. At the end of the evidence, a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The Trial Court recorded acquittal of the accused.
6. Mr.Utkarsh Sharma learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the order acquitting the accused was contrary to law and evidence on record and the same is based on the irrelevant material. 6.1 Mr.Sharma would submit that the Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondent and not properly appreciating the evidence produced on record. He would submit that the Trial Court has given waitage to the minor omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. The reasons Page 6 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined assigned by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused are unjust, improper, perverse and unwarranted.
7. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
8. We have perused the judgement of the Trial Court and we found that having gone into the aspects of the expert evidence and medical witnesses and the deposition of doctors, the Sessions Court found that it was not possible to consider the evidence to suggest that the burn injuries caused were actually out of an incident as made out by the prosecution. We have therefore assessed the evidence of each of the witnesses and having independently applied our mind. For the reasons stated hereunder, we see no reason to take a view different from the one Page 7 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined taken by the Sessions Court.
8.1 As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was married to the accused Pravinbhai Ramjibhai. It was the case of the prosecution that on the date of the incident, the accused had blamed the deceased that she had illicit relationship with the cousin of the accused, as a result of which, the accused sprinkled kerosene and striking a matchstick, caused burn injuries, as a result of which, she died after being transferred to Civil Hospital from the Government Hospital at Bagasara. The prosecution story further takes a turn that a night previous to the date of the incident on 29.09.1995, Mansukhbhai Bavanjibhai Harijan who was the cousin of the deceased had visited the home. That he had interacted with the deceased Manishaben and the accused Pravin Page 8 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined Ramji and had tea during the night. The deposition of Mansukh Bavanjibhai Harijan - the cousin has been recorded at Exh.23 as PW-8. He in his deposition would submit that after having tea, Pravinbhai called his wife Manisha, told her to admit that if she had an illicit relationship with Mansukhbhai, she should slap him, which she did. After this incident, Mansukhbhai left the home. This is a version also given by the deceased whose statement was recorded in the FIR at Exh.37.
8.2 After the sustaining of burn injuries, Manishaben was examined at the Amreli Civil Hospital. Dr.Arshi Sidibhai Vadher was the Medical Officer who was present at the Civil Hospital, Amreli. He is the Prosecution Witness-1 at Exh.7. Perusal of his testimony indicates that Manishaben who was brought to the Civil Page 9 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined Hospital from the Bagasara Government Hospital as she was referred from the Bagasara Government Hospital. The referral note is at Exh.51. The deceased Manishaben had suffered burn injuries to the extent of 80 to 90%. The testimony of Dr.Vadher when read, proceeds to indicate that Manishaben had suffered severe burn injuries and was in pain. She was therefore under a medication Fortwin. Fortwin has an element of morphine and is administered to a patient who has sustained burn injuries and is undergoing severe pain. His testimony indicates that since this injection was administered to the deceased Manishaben when she came to the hospital, was in a state of dizziness and that she had also been given analgesic injection which is a treatment given for the burn injuries. The deposition of Dr.Vadher indicates that as a result of this, the patient would go into a shock and in Page 10 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined such circumstances, such a victim would avoid interaction so as to be able to give any statement. The nature of testimony of this Medical Officer would therefore indicate that before recording the complaint, it was seriously in doubt that Manishaben could give a statement of having sustained burn injuries directly implicating the accused.
8.3 There is one more reason why incident in question is in doubt inasmuch as in the history recorded by the Medical Officer at Bagasara Hospital who treated the deceased viz. Dr.Prahlad Patel was examined at Exh.48 suggested while recording the medical history, Manishaben had stated that she had sustained these burn injuries as a result of she catching fire while engaging with a stove. It has also come on record from the evidence of Dr.Vadher Page 11 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined that though the Executive Magistrate Shri Chauhan was called to record a dying declaration, looking to the medical condition of the deceased Manishaben, no dying declaration was recorded by Dr.Chauhan and the deceased succumbed to her injuries in the evening at 19:05.
8.4 Dr.Prahlad Patel who was the Medical Officer of the Community Health Center at Bagasara and was examined at Exh.48, testified that when the deceased Manishaben was brought to the hospital, she has sustained 80 to 90% of the burn injuries and therefore it was decided that she should be immediately transferred to the Civil Hospital as she was in a critical condition. Further reading of the evidence of Dr.Patel would indicate that she was brought in a very critical condition and she was Page 12 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined not in a position to give any statement. This evidence also therefore would question the genuineness and the veracity of the complaint recorded at Exh.37.
8.5 The police head constable of the Amreli City Police Station - Laljibhai Arjanbhai has been examined at Exh.36. According to his testimony, on 13.09.1995, when he was working at the Amreli City Mobile Police Station and while he was patrolling, he received a wireless message and therefore at 5:35 he went to the police station and he was directed to go to the Civil hospital Burns Ward to record the complaint. When he reached to the Burns Ward, he found Manishaben laying having sustained burn injuries. On he trying to question the deceased, it is his version that Manishaben refused to testify and insisted that she be served with Page 13 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined water. She was refused water. She therefore could not testify. After having waited for some time and recorded the complaint in whatever manner that happened, Laljibhai Arjanbhai Chavada left the place. The evidence therefore suggest one more reason as to why the FIR's version cannot be believed. The medical condition as explained Dr.Vadher and Dr.Prahlad Patel when read together with the evidence of the police constable Lalji Arjan who recorded the complaint, when read in conjunction, could therefore seriously create doubt on the veracity of the version recorded in the FIR filed recording the statement of the deceased, particularly when she was found to be in a sedated condition as a result of injection morphine and that she was incoherent in her speech.
8.6 What is also further evident is that though Page 14 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined the complaint was sought to be recorded at 5:45 in the evening, what is evident from the police records is that the Police Station Officer who reached after recording this complaint at 8:30 in the evening, the FIR was only lodged in the police station at 22:13 hours. The delay is unexplained in lodging the FIR and therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that this seriously creates a doubt on the veracity of the complaint compounded by the background on which it was recorded, cannot be believed. 8.7 There is one more reason why the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted. On sustaining of burn injuries, Manishaben was shifted to the Amreli Civil Hospital, where, Jayaben, Manishaben's aunt with whose son, she was alleged to have illicit relationship with, has reached to the ward according to her version. Page 15 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined She has inquired from Manishaben as to what has happened. Jayaben's evidence is recorded at Exh.20. According to her, on she having come to know of the incident, while she was at Moti Marad, she immediately left for Junagadh at 10:30. The bus would take her to Junagadh from Dhoraji. The distance from Moti Marad to Junagadh is about 18 to 19 kms. She reached Junagadh at about 11:00 A.M. and from there at around 12.30, she left Junagadh for Bagasara. She reached Bagasara Bus Station at 4:45 in the evening. She went to the residence of Pravinbhai where the parents of Pravinbhai and the in-laws of Manisha were present where she told that Manisha has been taken to the Civil Hospital, Amreli. As a result of this, she left for Amreli Civil Hospital where she found that there are others waiting outside the burns ward. She has reached the Civil Hospital, Amreli, at 6.30 in Page 16 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined the evening. According to her deposition, Manishben was in proper condition and she has told her about the incident. There is obviously a contradiction between the testimony of Jayaben who met her with with the medical evidence of Dr.Vadher which indicates that when the patient was brought to him at 5:20 in the evening, she was in a critical condition having suffered 80 to 90% of burns. She was heavily sedated as a result of having administered Fortwin injection. Coupled with this fact, the medical evidence of Dr.Prahlad Patel at Bagasara, it was therefore found that the testimony of Jayaben who met her more than an hour and a half, after the version so given by the Doctor, cannot be believed. 8.8 Perusal of the evidence of Govindbhai Dosabhai Harijan at Exh.26 also would indicate that Manishaben was not in a position to speak. Page 17 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined This was therefore directly contradict the evidence of Jayaben. When the testimony of Mansukh Bavanjibhai at Exh.23 is also examined, what is also found from the evidence is that Pravinbhai-the accused has sustained the burn injuries. He had been taken to the Bagasara Medical Center where doctor Prahladbhai who has examined and whose testimony is at Exh.48 indicates that the Pravinbhai was brought to the hospital on 01.10.1995 and he has sustained burn injuries on the hand. The fingers on the rear side has sustained second degree burns. Both the hands had sustained first degree burns. A certificate of injury is on record at Exh.49. Dr.Patel's testimony indicates that when the injured accused Pravin was brought in and was asked about his history, he had said that he had sustained these burn injuries as he was trying to save his wife. This version therefore seriously Page 18 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined put in doubt the prosecution story that it was the accused who was responsible having committed the incident.
8.9 Based on the appreciation of evidence entirely, in light of the FIR at Exh.37 which was found to be not genuine, the absence of any dying declaration recorded and the contradiction of the version of the witnesses, the Trial Court found that the prosecution was not able to bring home the charge against the accused of having committed an offense under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. Conscious of the fact that this is a judgement by which the accused has earned an acquittal and in light of the decisions of the Supreme Court, when two views are possible, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court Page 19 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined should not be interfered with by the Appellate Court unless for the special reasons. A beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Ram Niwas reported in (2010) 15 SCC 463 be made in this regard. In the said case, it has been observed as under:-
"6. This Court has held in Kalyan v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 632 :
"8. The settled position of law on the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is passed, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused persons, as envisaged under the criminal jurisprudence prevalent in our country is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court. Normally the views of the trial court, as to the credibility of the witnesses, must be given proper weight and consideration because the trial court is supposed to have watched the demeanour and conduct of the witness and is in a better position to appreciate their testimony. The High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court. In Kali Ram V. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, this Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of Page 20 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court further observed:
"27. It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilized society. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of the offence of murder and is hanged, nothing further can undo the mischief for the wrong resulting from the unmerited conviction is irretrievable. To take another instance, if an innocent person is sent to jail and undergoes the sentence, the scars left by the miscarriage of justice cannot be erased by any subsequent act of expiration. Not many persons undergoing the pangs of wrongful conviction are fortunate like Dreyfus to have an Emile Zola to champion their cause and succeed in getting the verdict of guilt annulled. All this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice Such a risk can be minimised but not ruled out altogether It may in this connection be apposite to refer to the following observations of Sir Carleton Alien quoted on page 157 of "The Proof of Guilt" by Glanville Williams, second edition:Page 21 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined "I dare say some sentimentalists would assent to the proposition that it is better that a thousand, or even a million, guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer; but no responsible and practical person would accept such a view. For it is obvious that if our ratio is extended indefinitely, there comes a point when the whole system of justice has broken down and society is in a state of chaos."
28. The fact that there has to be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused and that in the absence of that it is not possible to record a finding of his guilt was stressed by this Court in the case of Shivaji Sahebrao, (1973) 2 SCC 793, as is clear from the following observations:
"Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely, may be guilty before a court, can be convicted and the mental distinction between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure considerations."
"9. The High Court while dealing with the appeals against the order of acquittal must keep in mind the following propositions laid down by this Court, namely, (i) the slowness of the appellate court to disturb a finding of fact; (ii) the noninterference with the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case of taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court."
8. In Arulvelu and another versus State reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 206, the Supreme Court after discussing the earlier judgments, Page 22 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined observed in para No. 36 as under:
"36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment can not be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshaling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law."
10.As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394, while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat Page 23 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view.
11.Scope of appeal against acquittal is well laid down in case of Chandrappa and ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, it was observed:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate 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 Page 24 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize 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 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 on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
12.Even recently, the Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka [(2024) 8 SCC 149] has held as under:
Page 25 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined "39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: -
"29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415] " 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, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 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 curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise 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 Page 26 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined 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 on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: -
"8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and Page 27 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:-
41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;
41.2 That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record;
41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."
13.We find no reason to interfere with the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amreli, in Sessions Case Page 28 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/281/2000 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/11/2024 undefined No.99 of 1995 on 20.12.1999. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) ANKIT SHAH Page 29 of 29 Uploaded by ANKIT SHAH(HC01063) on Thu Nov 28 2024 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 29 22:43:32 IST 2024