TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court has held When there is circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime. The petitioner had challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before the learned Sessions Court, and the latter, after examining the records of the case found no anomaly in the impugned judgment and agreed with the view taken by the learned trial Court. In these circumstances, the presumption of innocence qua the respondent has been reinforced twice over. 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 harassment and cruelty were substantial to give benefit of doubt to the respondent and acquitting him. There is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner before this Court vide CRL.M.C.4449/2014. vi. During the pendency of the aforesaid CRL.M.C.4449/2014, the trial qua the husband for offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC continued and vide order dated 17.09.2016, Mr. Vivek Sethi/respondent no. 2, was acquitted for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC by Ms. Charu Gupta, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, SED/Saket Courts, New Delhi. vii. The aforesaid judgment of acquittal dated 17.09.2016, was challenged by the petitioner in CRL.A. 29/2016, before the learned District and Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The said criminal appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2018 by Sh. Girish Kathpalia, District Sessions Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. viii. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment dated 20.01.2018, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition being CRL.REV.P.471/2019 (being disposed of by the present judgment). ix. During the pendency of the proceedings, the mother-in-law of the petitioner, i.e., Smt. Suniti Sethi passed away. x. It is pertinent to mention that the connected matters, i.e., petition bearing no. CRL.M.C.4449/2014 and the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be ordinarily interfered with unless the findings in such judgment are shown to be arrived at by incorrect or perverse appreciation of material on record and the law. This settled position of law with respect to the scope of the learned Appellate Court qua an appeal against the acquittal has been considered in a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: 190. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the burden of proving an accused guilty beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. If upon analysis of evidence two views are possible, one which points to the guilt of the accused and the other which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the latter must be preferred. Reversal of a judgment and order of conviction and acquittal of the accused should not ordinarily be interfered with unless such reversal/acquittal is vitiated by perversity. In other words, the court might reverse an order of acquittal if the court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon analysis of the evidence on record found the accused to be not guilty . When ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnesses in person while they depose. The appellate court is expected to involve itself in a deeper, studied scrutiny of not only the evidence before it, but is duty-bound to satisfy itself whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible view. When two views are possible, the one taken by the trial court in a case of acquittal is to be followed on the touchstone of liberty along with the advantage of having seen the witnesses. Article 21 of the Constitution of India also aids the accused after acquittal in a certain way, though not absolute. Suffice it is to state that the appellate court shall remind itself of the role required to play, while dealing with a case of an acquittal. 21. Every case has its own journey towards the truth and it is the Court's role to undertake. Truth has to be found on the basis of evidence available before it. There is no room for subjectivity nor the nature of offence affects its performance. We have a hierarchy of courts in dealing with cases. An appellate court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recent decision of Vijay Mohan Singh , this Court again had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 378 CrPC and the interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal. This Court considered a catena of decisions of this Court right from 1952 onwards. In para 31, it is observed and held as under : (Vijay Mohan Singh case, SCC pp. 447-49) 31. An identical question came to be considered before this Court in Umedbhai Jadavbhai. In the case before this Court, the High Court interfered with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record. However, the High Court, while reversing the acquittal, did not consider the reasons given by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused. Confirming the judgment of the High Court, this Court observed and held in para 10 as under : (SCC p. 233) '10. Once the appeal was rightly entertained against the order of acquittal, the High Court was entitled to reappreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion. Ordinarily, the High Court would give due importance to the opinion of the Sessions Judge if the same were arrived at after proper apprec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te court's judgment should be disturbed. But if on the other hand the court comes to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any infirmity, it cannot but be held that the interference by the appellate court in the order of acquittal was not justified; then in such a case the judgment of the appellate court has to be set aside as of the two reasonable views, the one in support of the acquittal alone has to stand. Having regard to the above discussion, we shall proceed to examine the judgment of the trial court in this case.' 31.2. In K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan, after observing that though there is some substance in the grievance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that the High Court has not adverted to all the reasons given by the trial Judge for according an order of acquittal, this Court refused to set aside the order of conviction passed by the High Court after having found that the approach of the Sessions Judge in recording the order of acquittal was not proper and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge on several aspects was unsustainable. This Court further observed that as the Sessions Judge was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e very cases cited at the Bar, namely, Surajpal Singh v. State; Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P.) In our opinion, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the High Court was not justified in reviewing the entire evidence and coming to its own conclusions.' 31.4. In K. Gopal Reddy, this Court has observed that where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule. ' (emphasis in original) 27. N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N. as hereunder : (SCC pp. 695-99, paras 20-21 23-24) 20. Mainly it is contended by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court is a possible view , having regard to the evidence on record. It is submitted that the trial court has recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of its findings for acquittal. Under Section 378 CrPC, no differentiation is made between an appeal against acquittal and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly in cases where conclusion recorded by the trial court is not a possible view, then only the High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of conviction. In the said judgment, distinction from that of possible view to erroneous view or wrong view is explained. In clear terms, this Court has held that if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view , the High Court ought not to reverse the acquittal to that of the conviction. *** 23. Further, in Hakeem Khan v. State of M.P. this Court has considered the powers of the appellate court for interference in cases where acquittal is recorded by the trial court. In the said judgment it is held that if the possible view of the trial court is not agreeable for the High Court, even then such possible view recorded by the trial court cannot be interdicted. It is further held that so long as the view of the trial court can be reasonably formed, regardless of whether the High Court agrees with the same or not, verdict of the trial court cannot be interdicted and the High Court cannot supplant over the view of the trial court. Para 9 of the judgment reads as under : (SCC pp. 722-23) '9 . Having heard the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lso clear from the evidence of PWs 3, 5 and 11 that the currency and cellphone were taken out from the drawer of the table by the appellant at their instance. There is also no reason, when the tainted notes and the cellphone were given to the appellant at 5.45 p.m. no recordings were made and the appellant was not tested by PW 11 till 7.00 p.m. 9. The petitioner had challenged the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before the learned Sessions Court, and the latter, after examining the records of the case found no anomaly in the impugned judgment and agreed with the view taken by the learned trial Court. In these circumstances, the presumption of innocence qua the respondent has been reinforced twice over. 10. The grounds taken in the present petition as well as during the course of the arguments are the same which were taken by the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court. The grounds raised before the learned Appellate Court were dealt by a detailed threadbare analysis of the prosecution evidence on record and finding of the learned trial Court. It was for the petitioner to demonstrate the perverseness in the impugned judgment passed by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
