9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 498A/406/34 of the IPC at P.S. Greater Kailash-I on 27.02.2003. iii. Upon conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who took cognizance of the same on 18.10.2003. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 10.01.2013, framed charges against the Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 2 under Section 498A of the IPC, while discharging the Mother-in-law & Sister-in-law of the petitioner, under Section 498A & 406 of the IPC. Vide the aforesaid order, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate also discharged Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 2 for offence under Section 406 of the IPC. iv. The petitioner preferred a revision petition bearing no. 09/2013 against the aforesaid order on charge dated 10.01.2013, whereby, the petitioner sought setting aside of the order discharging the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner and the discharge of her husband, Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 2 under Section 406 of the IPC. The said revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 10.05.2013. v. The aforesaid order dated 10.05.2013 was challenged by the petitioner befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t no. 2, which was sought to be proved through the testimony of Dr. M.S. Sacchar (PW-2), was also ignored. 5. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 has submitted that the concurrent findings of both the courts below, i.e., the learned trial Court & the learned Appellate Court, have correctly appreciated the entire material on record. It was further submitted that there were specific instances demonstrating that the petitioner/complainant was contradicting herself on material points, which has been correctly observed and appreciated by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court. He further submits that the present revision petition may be dismissed as no grounds have been made out for this Court to interfere with the two concurrent findings of the Courts below. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and perused the record. 7. The present revision petition challenges the judgment of an Appellate Court dismissing an order against acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of the learned Appellate Court is to the extent that the judgment of acquittal shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o consider whether the trial court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. Precedents 26. Mohan v. State of Karnataka as hereunder : (SCC paras 20-23) "20. Section 378 CrPC enables the State to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 384 CrPC speaks of the powers that can be exercised by the appellate court. When the trial court renders its decision by acquitting the accused, presumption of innocence gathers strength before the appellate court. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence. Certainly, the Court of first instance has its own advantages in delivering its verdict, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e perverse has been dealt with and considered in para 20 of the aforesaid decision, which reads as under : (Babu case, SCC p. 199) "20. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. The finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn, Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons , Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad , Arulvelu and Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P.)" It is further observed, after following the decision of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police, that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ascertain whether the High Court has conformed to the aforementioned principles. We find that the High Court has not strictly proceeded in the manner laid down by this Court in Doshi case viz. first recording its conclusion on the question whether the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable, which alone will justify interference in an order of acquittal though the High Court has rendered a well-considered judgment duly meeting all the contentions raised before it. But then will this non-compliance per se justify setting aside the judgment under appeal? We think, not. In our view, in such a case, the approach of the court which is considering the validity of the judgment of an appellate court which has reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, should be to satisfy itself if the approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or conclusions arrived at by it are demonstrably unsustainable and whether the judgment of the appellate court is free from those infirmities; if so to hold that the trial court judgment warranted interference. In such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he conclusion that the judgment of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not set aside that order. It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, of course, keeping in view the well-established rule that the presumption of innocence of the accused is not weakened but strengthened by the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court which had the advantage of observing the demeanour of witnesses whose evidence has been recorded in its presence. It is also well settled that the court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in the case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to the riders that the presumption of innocence with which the accused person starts in the trial court continues even up to the appellate stage and that the appellate court should attach due weight to the opinion of the trial court which recorded the order of acquittal. If the appellate court reviews the evidence, keeping those principles in mind, and comes to a contrary conclusion, the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise 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.' 21. Further in the judgment in relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, this Court has considered the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be right in stating that the trial court went overboard in stating that the complainant party was the aggressor, but the trial court's ultimate conclusion leading to an acquittal is certainly a possible view on the facts of this case. This is coupled with the fact that the presence of the kingpin Sarpanch is itself doubtful in view of the fact that he attended the Court at some distance and arrived by bus after the incident took place.' 24. By applying the abovesaid principles and the evidence on record in the case on hand, we are of the considered view that having regard to material contradictions which we have already noticed above and also as referred to in the trial court judgment, it can be said that acquittal is a "possible view". By applying the ratio as laid down by this Court in the judgments which are stated supra, even assuming another view is possible, same is no ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal and to convict the appellant for the offence alleged. From the evidence, it is clear that when the Inspecting Officer and other witnesses who are examined on behalf of the prosecution, went to the office of the appellant-accused, the appellant was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke to the appellate court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( in short "CrPC") vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings." 11. Having perused the record, this Court finds that the learned trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court has carefully scrutinized the evidence on record and has dealt with each and every issue raised by the petitioner/complainant. The views taken by both the courts below are possible. From the evidence, it is clear that not only the allegation of demand of dowry qua the respondent were vague but the discrepancy in the allegations of ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
