JUDGMENT (Per A.B. Chaudhari, J.) :
1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2] Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.11.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in
1
- 2 -
Sessions Case No.156/1993 by which an order of acquittal was recorded acquitting the accused nos.1 to 3, the present appeal was filed by the State against acquittal.
3] We have perused the impugned judgment and order so also the evidence of three eye witnesses namely Sangita, Achut and Ramraje. We have carefully seen the cross- examination of these eye witnesses. We have gone through the reasons recorded by the learned trial Judge for disbelieving the testimony of these three eye witnesses. We find that the incident had taken place on 30.4.1993 and the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses were recorded on 7.5.1993, for which there is no explanation from the prosecution. That apart, upon perusal of the evidence and cross-examination of these three eye witnesses, we find that their evidence suffers from material omissions amounting to contradictions and as such their evidence is unreliable. The FIR was registered on the basis of dying declaration of Babasaheb Choudhari, but then the Court has rightly found that the same was unreliable. We do not find any fault with the trial Court in ultimately recording a finding that eye-witness account given by these three witnesses was not reliable.
- 3 -
We do not want to take another view in the matter in the light of the principle set out by the Supreme Court in paragraph no.24 in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Darshan Singh alias Darshan Lal (AIR 2012 SC 1973). We quote Para 24 of the said decision as under:
"24. We are fully aware of our limitation to interfere with an order against acquittal. 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 in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
4] Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No.73/1996 is dismissed.
(INDIRA K. JAIN, J.) (A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.)
ndk/cr1101527.doc