Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 96 of 2018 Applicant :- Saudan Singh Opposite Party :- Kushalpal And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Sukendu Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
This appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 23.12.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Court No.2 (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bareilly in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 2008 (State versus Charan Singh and others) arising out of case crime No. 569 of 2007 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police station Aonla, district Bareilly whereby out of the two accused, only one Sadhu Singh was convicted by the court below and the accused respondent-Kushalpal was acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.
Heard Sri Sukhendu Pal Singh learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned A.G.A. on application seeking leave to appeal and perused the impugned judgement and lower court's record which has been received.
On a careful perusal of the impugned judgment and evidence available on record, it appears that the learned Trial Court, after a detailed appreciation of evidence, acquitted the accused respondent-Kushalpal finding material contradictions between the statement of witnesses and the NCR version of the occurrence with regard to complicity of Kushalpal. Moreso, the witnesses have specifically assigned the role of causing injury by firearm to co-accused Sadhu Singh, therefore, the complicity of accused respondent was found doubtful and he was given benefit of doubt.
The view taken by the learned trial court, so far as acquittal of accused-respondent Kushpal is concerned, is a possible view and the golden thread which runs through the administration of criminal justice while hearing the appeal against the acquittal is that even if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and other towards their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted and the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed by the appellate court. The reason is that while passing the order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is re-inforced.
In Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujrat; 1996 (9) SCC 225, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : -
"...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 principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocence unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is, re-enforced and strengthened by the trial court "
In Mahadeo Laxman Sarane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 705, the Apex Court has observed that : -
"It is true, that the settled legal position is that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the accused and the other against him. In such a case if the trial court takes a view in favour of the accused, the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal."
In C. Antony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1, the Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-
"Unless the findings of trial court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of the material on record."
In Sirajuddin Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 4 SCC 375, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle in the following words:-
"Where trial Court's order of acquittal is based on a reasonably possible view, High court should not, as a rule of prudence, disturb the acquittal."
Considering the facts and circumstances in wake of the above cited legal position, we do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant.
The application seeking leave to appeal is rejected and consequently the appeal is dismissed.
File of Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2018 alongwith lower court's record be sent back to the regular Court with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties and be listed, if possible on 11.5.2018.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 faraz