Tota Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 1 April, 1987
4. Guidelines have been set by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court as to how the High Court shall deal with an appeal against an order of acquittal. One of the latest decisions reiterating the established principle has been , Tota Singh v. State of Punjab. It has been held that the mere fact that the appellate Court is inclined on a reappreciation of the evidence to reach a conclusion which is at variance With the one recorded in the order of acquittal passed by the Court below will not constitute a valid nd sufficient ground for setting aside the acquittal. The jurisdiction of the appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse. Where two views are possible on an appraisal of the evidence adduced in the case and the Court below has taken a view which is a plausible one, the appellate Court cannot legally interfere with an order of acquittal even if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court below on its consideration of the evidence is erroneous. The learned Sessions Judge in taking a view against the appellant's case was mostly influenced by the facts that on account of previous litigations and enmity between the parties the approach to the prosecution evidence should be careful and cautious, the evidence of the appellant (P.W. 1) was not corroborated by independent, natural and neighbouring witnesses, some independent persons cited in the complaint petition as eye-witnesses to the occurrence were withheld from the Court, P.W. 3 who did not belong to the locality could be said to be a chance and not a natural witness, there was discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 particularly with regard to theft of the gold necklace, the injuries on the person of the appellant could have been self-inflicted, there was complete absence of evidence of resistance which could have been shown by the appellant being a wrestler and above all, there was no material to show that such an incident was reported to the police station which was at a stone's throw from the place of occurrence. These considerations are undoubtedly very weighty and it is very difficult to surmount them.