[1] The present Appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat against the Judgment and order dated 30.06.1993 passed by learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Special Case No. 41 of 1991, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondent – original accused from the charges alleged against him.
[2] The brief facts of the prosecution case are that at Village : Sisva, Taluka : Borsad, there was some quarrel about labour wages between Natubhai Umedbhai and Dineshbhai Lakhabhai Vanker and said Natubhai spoke insulting words to Dineshbhai and slapped him. Dineshbhai therefrom went to police to file complaint. At that time the accused Shaileshbhai Surpanch of village called Dineshbhai and gave kick and fist blows. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the accused for the offence under Section 3(1), (10), (13), (14) and (15) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act before the Bhadaran Police Station.
[3] After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet is filed. Thereafter, the charge was framed against the respondent – accused. The respondent – accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
[4] To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined the witnesses and relied upon certain documents. At the end of trial, after recording the statements of the respondents – accused, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide the impugned Judgment and order, has acquitted the respondent – accused from the charges levelled against him.
[5] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.
[6] Heard learned A.P.P. Ms. Punani, appearing on behalf of the appellant – State of Gujarat. I have gone through the Judgment and order passed by the trial Court and also considered the documents produced on the record of the case.
[7] Learned APP, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the Judgment and order passed by the learned Judge is without considering the facts and evidence on the record. She has contended that looking to the complaint and the deposition of the witnesses it clearly appears that the quarrel took place at Vankarvas between the accused and the complainant group and then the complaint was filed. She has contended that the learned Judge has not considered the fact that the evidence of Arvindbhai and Poonambhai who were present at the meeting when the resolution was passed for boycotting Vankers. She has contended that the learned Judge has not considered the fact that the evidence of Hirabhai Tusharbhai who has supported the case of the prosecution saying that he was not allowed to have water from well. She has further contended that the learned Judge has erred in not believing the evidence of Babiben who had stated that under the pretext of having less fat in milk she was not paid full price for the milk. She has, therefore, contended that looking to the over all evidence, the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Judge has wrongly acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him. She has contended that the learned Judge has wrongly considered that the delay is not explained by the prosecution. She has further contended that the contention of the complaint is true and the delay in filing the complaint is also explained by the complainant that as to why the complaint was lodged late. She, therefore, contended that the Judgment and order of the trial Court is bad in law and perverse and, therefore, the same requires to be quashed and set aside.
[8] At the outset it is required to be noted that the principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by this Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006)6 SCC, 39, the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under:
“54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgement of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the court below.”
[9] Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)4 SCC 415 the Apex Court laid down the following principles:
“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 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 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 emphasis 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 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.”
[10] Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even 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.
[11] Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases.
[12] Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled.
[13] It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417.
[14] Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
[15] I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned Advocate for the appellant. I have also gone through the decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant. In the facts of the case, in my opinion, the said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
[16] The otherside is served, but absent. I have perused the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. First of all, so far as delay in filing the complaint is concerned, it is not disclosed and explained by the prosecution. As per the evidence of the prosecution is concerned, P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, examined at Ex.26, who admitted in his examination-in-chief that on 04.03.1991 at the place of offence i.e. at Vankarvas, police personnel were present there. This witness has admitted that he was investigating the case being C.R.No.II – 13/1991 registered with Badaran Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. He has admitted that the said case was registered by Vankars. He has admitted that on 03.03.1991, he went to investigate the case and he stayed till evening at Village : Sisva. There Mamlatdar, Social Officer etc. were present and police officers were also present. Even though the Superior Authority of that place was present yet that complaint was given and the delay is not explained by the complainant. The learned Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the respondents from the aforesaid charges. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court has also found nothing is produced on record to rebut the concrete findings of the trial Court.
[17] Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charge against the respondent – accused in the present Appeal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the respondent – accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case as alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
[18] Learned APP for the appellant is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
[19] In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against him. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
[20] I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is required to be dismissed.
[21] In view of above the Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of dated 30.06.1993 passed by learned 2nd Extra Assistant Sessions Judge, Nadiad, in Special Case No. 41 of 1991 acquitting the respondent – accused of the offences charged against him is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record & Proceeding may be sent back to the Special Judge.
[ Z. K. SAIYED, J. ] vijay