Judgment 28/04/2017 Appellant-State has preferred this leave to appeal under Section 378 (iii) and (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, Cr.P.C.), against judgment dated 29th of September, 2016, passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner (for short, learned trial Court) in Sessions Case No.122/2012. By the impugned judgment, learned trial Court has acquitted accused-respondent Ramdayal for offence punishable under Sections 341, 308, in alternative 308/34, 325, in alternative 325/34 and 323, or in alternative 323/34 IPC.
The facts, in brief, are that complainant Smt. Kamla submitted a written report before S.H.O., Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner, stating therein that her thirteen years old son, Madanlal, was returning back to house after Jagaran, in the village. When he reached at the street near house, accused respondent accompanied with other persons stopped him and 2started beating him by lathies and barchhies. The complainant, along with her brother-in-law and neigbours, rushed to the spot hearing hue and cries of Madanlal and saved him. It is further stated by complainant that had she not reached at the scene of occurrence, accused persons would have killed her son.
Investigation commenced in the matter and, upon its completion, charge-sheet was filed against accused-respondent before Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner. Later on, case was committed to Sessions Court, Bikaner for trial under Section 209 Cr.P.C.
Learned trial Court, after hearing arguments on charge, framed charge under Section 308, 323, 325 read with Section 34 against the accused/respondent and on denial, he was put on trial.
The prosecution examined ten witnesses and exhibited thirteen documents to prove charge against accused-respondent. On completion of evidence of prosecution, statements of accused- respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and thereafter learned trial Court heard final arguments and the impugned judgment of acquittal followed.
I have heard learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment and thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
The learned trial Court, after meticulously analyzing the entire evidence, recorded its definite finding that prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. This sort of finding facilitated acquittal of the accused-respondent by extending him benefit of doubt.
3After giving my thoughtful consideration to the findings and conclusions arrived at by learned trial Court, in the backdrop of evidence tendered by prosecution, I am of the view that finding of the learned trial Court does not appear to be inherently improbable. The learned trial Court, on critical analysis of the evidence of injured PW3 Madanlal and complainant PW1 Ms.
Kamla, found noticeable contradictions in their testimonies and accordingly highlighting that inconsistency proceeded to discard their evidence. That apart, learned trial Court has given due credence to a very vital fact that there was no light at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, taking into account complete darkness, learned trial Court has legitimately found involvement of accused in commission of offence seriously doubtful. The prosecution witness PW4 Surja Ram, in whose presence weapon of offence lathi is recovered from accused on his disclosure under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, has turned hostile and so also witness PW8 Mangilal. This sort of situation has put the recovery under serious clouds and recovery memos Ex.4 & Ex.5 per se vulnerable. While adverting to other prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court has found that PW5 Radhakishan has retracted from his earlier version. As regards presence of PW1 Ms. Kamla, learned trial Court has recorded a specific finding that in fact she was not present at the site precisely by relying on the testimony of I.O.
PW9 Narendra Singh. The other prosecution witness PW2 Amra Ram, though asserted his presence at the scene of occurrence, but considering serious contradictions and inconsistencies in his version, learned trial trial Court has discarded his testimony by 4expressing doubt about his presence also.
Though learned trial Court has acknowledged injury No.2 of grievous nature on the basis of medical evidence but, in want of proof that who has inflicted this injury to the victim, extended benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent.
Upon objective evaluation of findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court, I am unable to find any perversity in appreciation of evidence, and therefore, record my satisfaction that prosecution evidence is not worthy of moral certainty to bring home guilt against accused-respondent.
The scope of judicial review in an appeal against verdict of acquittal is very much limited and normally appellate Court is not expected to re-appraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by trial Court until and unless it is found that the findings arrived at by the trial Court perverse or against the weight of evidence.
Reliance in this behalf can be placed to a decision of Supreme Court in case of Gamini Bala Koteshwara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2010 SC 589).
Legal position is no more res integra that if the trial Court has construed the evidence while arriving at a conclusion favouring the cause of the accused, which is a plausible conclusion in the facts and circumstances of the case, then the appellate Court may not substitute its own view even if it may arrive at a 5different conclusion so as to upset the verdict of acquittal. When two views are possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt: T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2006) 1 SCC 401].
In view of foregoing discussion, I am not inclined to grant leave in the matter. Consequently, the leave craved for is declined and the appeal is hereby rejected.
(P.K. LOHRA)J.
Twinkle/4