Om Prakash vs Chhotelal and Another

V.G. Palshikar, J

This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge acquitting the accused of the offences with which he was charged.

The accused was tried for the charges mentioned against him in the judgment and the learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence on record recorded the finding of acquittal by the impugned order. It is this order which is assailed in the present revision petition on the grounds mentioned in the revision petition.

The position in criminal jurisprudence in relation to acquittal is established since long. Our jurisprudence which is Anglosaxon Jurisprudence, believes in innocence of the accused till he is found guilty of charges framed against him beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proving a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt lies squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution or the complainant, as the case may be and wherever there is failure on the part of the Prosecuting Agency to discharge this burden, according to law, acquittal should ensue.

It is also a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence in India that this presumption of acquittal is further fortified by an order of acquittal recorded by a learned Judge of competent jurisdiction on proper appreciation of evidence on record to assess which he had best opportunity.

The Supreme Court of India has also in very categorical term re-affirmed this position in relation to acquittals. In fact this position has now been crystalised by the Supreme Court of India and it is laid down that normally there should be no interference with an order of acquittal if the same is made on proper appreciation of the evidence on record for valid reasons stated in the order.

In Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat, it has been observed as under at page 2869; of Cri LJ:-

This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence canot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with, an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of trial Court are palpably manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate Court answers the above question '' in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only-reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In keeping was the above principles we have therefore to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not.

It will thus be seen that the law on this point of reappreciation of evidence and interference in order of acquittal by the appellate Court is crystalised by the Supreme Court of India.

Then in AIR 1996 SC 2478 : 1996 Cri LJ 3516) the Supreme Court has restated the position of law in this case in a different way by a different Bench of Hon''ble Judges. It reads as under at page 3519; of Cri LJ :-

Though the Code does not make any distinction between an appeal from acquittal and an appeal from conviction so far as powers of the appellate Court are concerned, certain unwritten rules of adjudication have consistently been followed by Judges while dealing with appeals against acquittal. No doubt, the High Court has full power to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion whether the appeal is against conviction or acquittal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the appellate Court has to bear in mind; first, that there is a general presumption in favour of the innocence of the person accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal. The second is, every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when the trial Court acquitted him, he would retain that benefit in the appellate Court also. Thus,'' appellate Court in appeals against acquittals has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record, that the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with disturbed. Durgacharan Naik and Others Vs. State of Orissa, Caetano Pleade Fernandes v. Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu AIR 1977 SCI 35: 1977 Cri LJ 167 ); Tota Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, Awadhesh and Anr Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan,

In Betal Singh Vs. State of M.P., yet another Division Bench of the Supreme Court has observed thus at page 4008; of Cri LJ :

It is well settled that the High Court''s power in disposing of appeals from conviction or acquittal are essentially the saine. It iscqually well settled that where the credibility of the evidence depends upon factors other than the demeanour of witnesses, the appellate Court is free to come to its own conclusion as to the credibility. But at the same time if the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is not palpably wrong there would be no occasion for reversal of the order of acquittal. Further the High Court should also consider the reasons advanced by the trial Court before altering the order of acquittal to order of conviction.

In Dharma Vs. Nirmal Singh Bittu and another, while considering the powers of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court has observed as under at page 1632; of Cri LJ :-

Before we record our reading of the evidence produced in the case, let a legal submission advanced by Shri Lalit, appearing for the respondent accused, be dealt with. His submission is that as the complainant had approached the High Court in revision and as under the revisional power available to the High Court u/s 401, Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court could not have altered the finding of acquittal into one of conviction, because of what has been stated in Sub-section (3) thereof, if we were to be satisfied that the acquittal was wrongful, it would not be within our competence to convict the respondent; at best the case could be sent back for retrial. We are not impressed with the submission inasmuch as the approach to this Court being under Article 136 of the Constitution, we do not read the limitation imposed by Section 401(3) of the Code qua the power available to us under the aforesaid provision. May it be pointed out that similar submission had been advanced by Shri Lalit himself in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, then contending that this Court is incompetent to issue rule of enhancement as had been done in those cases. It was held in the aforesaid decision that the power available to this Court under Article 136 is not circumscribed by any limitation. In any case, power under Article 142 is available to pass such order as may be deemed appropriate to do complete justice. We, therefore, reject this contention of Shri Lalit and proceed to examine the materials to find out whether case of conviction does exist as the contention of the appellant.

According to me, therefore, powers of the High Court to deal with acquittal in a revision petition against the order of acquittal are certainly circumscribed by the provisions of Section 401. I am also firmly of the opinion that what has been laid down by the Supreme Court of India in relation to appeal against the acquittal applies mutatis mutandis to revisions against the acquittals and therefore, unless the order of acquittal is palpably wrong the findings of not guilty are perverse and also the reasoning for reaching that conclusion are unsustainable in law, no interference by this Court against the acquittal is possible in revision against acquittal. Hence, this revision fails and is dismissed.