Pachayappan vs State of Tamil Nadu and Thiru Chakravarthy

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred against the acquittal of the second Respondent herein, who was

prosecuted as the accused in C.C. No. 263 of 2003 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dharmapuri. The impugned judgment of

the trial Court was passed on 13.12.2007. PW1 in the trial, is the Petitioner in this Criminal Revision Case. The State represented by the Sub-

Inspector of Police, has been arrayed as the first Respondent in the criminal revision case.

The prosecution case in brief, is as follows:

The second Respondent is employed as a teacher in a Government Primary School. He is a resident of Vediyur. He has committed cheating on

one Sankar, grand son of Venkatachala Chetty (since deceased), by showing a bogus and fabricated appointment order as if he had secured a job

for him in the Thermal Power Station at Kalpakkam. The second Respondent/accused who was closely moving with the defacto complainant

Venkatachala Chetty (since deceased) informed him that he could get a Government Job for his grand son Sankar (PW4), provided he could

arrange for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-within three months. When the said Venkatachala Chetty replied that he could not arrange for such a huge

amount within three months, the second Respondent/accused asked him to give Rs. 25,000/-as advance and informed him that the balance amount

of Rs. 75,000/-could be paid when he could get the order and Sankar could join the post. When he was asked about the salary, the second

Respondent/accused informed that the job was a clerical job in Kalpakkam Thermal Power Station and the monthly salary would be Rs. 7,500/-.

Based on such promise to get a job, the second Respondent received a sum of Rs. 25,000/-from the defacto complainant as advance on

26.10.2001. Two days thereafter, he met the defaco complainant and informed him that he had made all arrangements by making payment of the

advance amount and in twenty days thereafter he expected the order to come and that hence the defacto complainant should keep ready the

balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-. After a lapse of twenty five days thereafter, he showed certain papers as if they were the orders of appointment

and demanded payment of the balance amount on 20.11.2001. Thereafter, the defacto complainant sold the jewels of his wife and daughter-in-law

and along with the sum received as the cost of those jewels, he added his savings and paid the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-in the presence of

Pachayappan (PW1), Jayaraman and one Pandurangan (PW3). The second Respondent/accused after getting the amount, took Sankar on

28.11.2001 itself informing the defacto complainant that he was taking him to make him join the post. Within two days thereafter, second

Respondent/accused alone returned back and informed the defacto complainant that the officer had not signed the order and hence it would take

two more days for Sankar to join the post. After a week from the said date, Sankar came back and when he was asked by the defacto

complainant as to what happened, he informed that the second Respondent/accused took him to a room in a lodge in Chennai, got his signatures in

certain documents and left that place after informing him that he would come back in two days to make him join the post, but he never returned as

he promised and that after staying there in the room in the lodge for five days, drained of all his money and left without money for his survival,

Sankar came back to Vediyur.

Thereafter, the defacto complainant met the Respondent No. 2/accused and asked him to return back Rs. 1,00,000/-stating he was not

interested in getting the job promised by the second Respondent/accused to his grand son. The second Respondent/accused replied that he would

get a job within a month or return back the amount with interest. But, thereafter he was evading payment for about three months. Hence, the

defacto complainant took one Kannappan (PW2) to the second Respondent/accused and demanded payment of the said amount in his presence,

for which the second Respondent/accused promised that he would pay back the amount in two months. Thus, the second Respondent caused a

delay of six months and thereafter, he paid only a sum of Rs. 40,000/-and promised to pay the balance amount within three days. The fourth day

after the first payment , he paid another sum of Rs. 10,000/-and prayed for three more months time for making payment of the balance amount of

Rs. 50,000/-. When he was again approached after three months, he abused the defacto complainant stating that he had no evidence for having

paid any amount to the second Respondent/accused, besides proclaiming that he could not do anything. The second Respondent/accused also

caused threat to the defacto complainant with goond as. The defacto complainant gave complaint under Ex.P4 to the District Collector,

Dharmapuri District on the grievance day, namely 03.03.2003.

Similarly, the second Respondent/accused cheated PW1-Pachayappan and received a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-in two instalments (on 01.11.2001

Rs. 25,000/-as first instalment and balance Rs. 75,000/-ten days thereafter) on making a false promise of getting a job for his son Senthil Kumar

(PW5) in Kalpakkam Thermal Power Station for the salary of Rs. 7500/-p.m and returned only a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. He also gave a similar

complaint on the above said date to the District Collector. Both the complaints were forwarded to the District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri,

whereupon a case was registered by preparing Ex.P5-First Information Report in DCB Crime No. 4 of 2003 on 18.03.2003 on the basis of

Ex.P4 complaint, for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC by the Sub-Inspector of Police, DCB, Dharmapuri.

PW6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the case, took up the case for investigation, completed the investigation and submitted a final

report alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC (2 counts) . Based on the final report of Sub-Inspector of

Police, learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dharmapuri took cognizance of the case and took it on file as C.C. No. 263 of 2003. On appearance,

the second Respondent herein/accused pleaded not guilty and hence the trial Court framed charges for offences punishable under Sections 420

and 468 IPC. Subsequently the charges were also amended as 420 IPC and 468 r/w. 471 IPC (2 counts). The second Respondent / accused

denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

In the trial that followed such a plea, totally six witnesses were examined as P Ws 1 to 6 and five documents were marked as Exs. P1 to P5.

After examining the accused u/s 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the

prosecution, the Court below proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the said evidence since the second Respondent /accused did not have

any oral and documentary evidence to adduce. On either side, no material object was produced. Upon considering the evidence in the light of the

arguments advanced on either side, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dharmapuri came to the conclusion that none of the charges framed

against the second Respondent/accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the second Respondent/accused by the

judgment of the Court below dated 13.12.2007. Aggrieved by and questioning the propriety and legality of the said judgment of acquittal, PW1

has come forward with the present criminal revision case on various grounds set out in the memorandum of revision.

The submissions made by Mr. N.S. Sivakumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, by Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government

Advocate (Crl. side) representing the first Respondent and by Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel for the second Respondent were heard.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper manner, which resulted in

perversity of the finding and that therefore, the judgment of acquittal should be set aside by exercising the power of revision of this Court. The

learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) simply supported the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner without adding any

separate and specific contention.

Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second Respondent contended that the Court below, on a proper evaluation of evidence came to the

correct conclusion holding the second Respondent not guilty of the offences with which he stood charged; that the finding of the Court below

cannot be termed infirm or defective, much less perverse and that therefore, the revision should be dismissed. It is the further contention of the

learned Counsel for the second Respondent that a group of cheats operating from Chennai and Salem seem to have cheated the defacto

complainant and PW1 besides one Dinakar Prasad, the brother -in-law of the second Respondent/accused and that not able to fix the said group,

a case has been foisted against the second Respondent/accused. The learned Counsel for the second Respondent also contended that the

presumption of innocence in all criminal cases gets strengthened by the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court and that the Court of revision

cannot interfere with the judgment of acquittal simply because the evidence admit the probability of two views, one in favour of the accused and the

other in favour of the prosecution and the Court of revision prefers to take the other view, namely the view in favour of the prosecution.

This Court gave its anxious consideration to the contentions raised on both sides. The evidence available on record were also taken into

consideration.

In this case, investigation has been conducted by the District Crime Branch based on the complaints marked as Exs.P4 and P1. One

Venkatachala Chetty (since deceased), grand father of PW4, was the defaco complainant under Ex.P4, whereas PW1 was the complainant under

Ex.P1. Ex.P4 is a type-written complaint, where as Ex.P1 is a print out taken after typing the contents in a computer. Both the complaints were not

lodged with the police. They were presented to the District Collector on the grievance day, namely 03.03.2003. Though both the complaints were

forwarded to the District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri for action, Ex.P4 alone was treated as the basis of the FIR and FIR (Ex.P5) was prepared.

In both the complaints similar allegations were made against the second Respondent/accused.

As per the contents of Ex.P4, Venkatachala Chetty, the grandfather of PW4, was allegedly cheated by the second Respondent/accused and

as per Ex.P1, it was PW1 Pachayappan, who was cheated by the second Respondent/accused. As per the contents of Ex.P4, deceased

Venkatachala Chetty paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/-on 26.10.2001 and made payment of the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-on 28.11.2001 to the

second Respondent/accused. As per the contents of Ex.P1, PW1 Pachayappan, the author of Ex.P1, paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/-on 01.11.2001

and the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-was paid after 10 days from the date of the first payment.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second Respondent, there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaints under Exs.P4 and

P1. The contents of the complaints are almost similar to each other showing possibility of due deliberation and concoction before preferring the

complaints. The two persons, for whose appointments'' the amount was allegedly received by the second Respondent/accused, have been

examined as P Ws 4 and 5 respectively. PW4 is Sankar, the grand son of Venkatachala Chetty, the author of Ex.P4 complaint. When the

evidence of PW4 in the chief examination itself is considered, it will go to show that there is a material contradiction between his testimony and the

contents of the complaints, namely Exs.P1 and P4. Though he has deposed in line with the contents of Ex.P4 complaint that a sum of Rs. 25,000/-

was paid as initial payment and the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-was paid in November 2001 by his grandfather and that the said amount was

raised by selling the jewels of his mother and grandmother, he has also ventured to state that on the very same day PW1 also paid a sum of Rs.

75,000/-to the second Respondent/accused. It is his further evidence that at first his grandfather paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/-and thereafter, PW1

paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/-and that the second Respondent/accused got both the amounts, counted them and put them in his box. According to

Ex.P1 complaint, PW1 gave a sum of Rs. 25,000/-on 01.11.2001 and paid the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-10 days after the said date. It will

take us to 11.11.2001.

It is not the case of PW1, as found in Ex.P1, that he and Venkatachala Chetty paid the amount, namely Rs. 75,000/-each to the Petitioner at

one and the same time or that he paid the second installment in the house of Venkatachala Chetty. Similarly, there is no averment in Ex.P4

complaint, that PW1 also paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/-in the house of Venkatachala Chetty, when Venkatachala Chetty paid Rs. 75,000/-to the

accused. Payment of second installment, namely Rs. 75,000/-was made, according to Ex.P4 complaint, on 28.11.2001. It should also be noticed

that in Ex.P4 complaint it has been stated that Venkatachala Chetty wanted to make payment of the second installment only in the presence of

witnesses and expressed the same to the accused, whereupon the accused agreed for the same and that PW1-Pachayappan, PW2-Kannappan

and two other persons by names Jayaraman and Pandurangan were invited and in their presence Venkatachala Chetty made payment of the said

amount on 28.11.2001. The complaint does not state anything about payment made by PW1 on 28.11.2001 at the time when Venkatachala

Chetty allegedly paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. On the other hand, it is averred in Ex.P1 that the first payment of Rs. 25,000/-by PW1 was made on

01.11.2001 and the second payment of Rs. 75,000/-was made 10 days thereafter. It will take us to 11.11.2001.

Keeping the above said material contradictions in mind, the other evidence adduced on the prosecution side have got to be considered. As per

the contents of Ex.P4 complaint, Venkatachala Chetty paid the first installment of Rs. 25,000/-on 26.10.2001 and the second installment of Rs.

75,000/-was paid on 28.11.2001 i.e., after a lapse of more than a month from the date of first payment. On the other hand, it is the evidence of

PW1 that the gap between the first and second payments made by PW1 was only 15 days. PW4 is admittedly a B. Com graduate. He admits that

for getting employment in the State Government services, one can get such employment only through TNPSC or employment exchange. However,

he would plead ignorance as to whether one should write examinations conducted by Union Public Service Commission for entering Central

Government services. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the second Respondent, it is highly doubtful as to how the second

Respondent, who was only a primary school teacher would be able to secure employment in a Central Government concern.

It should also be noticed that another revelation made by PW4 will cast a doubt as to whether the Exs.P1 and P4 could have been the first

informations received by the police. PW4, in his evidence during cross examination, has stated that he lodged a complaint in the office of the

Superintendent of Police in 2001. There is no explanation as to what happened to such a complaint, if at all the same could be true. PW5-Senthil

Kumar is the son of PW1. According to PW5''s evidence, payment of Rs. 25,000/-was made by his father on 10th or 11th November 2001. It is

quite contra to what is found in Ex.P4 complaint. In Ex.P4 complaint, it has been stated that the said amount was paid on 01.11.2001. It is also the

evidence of PW5 that at the time of payment of the above said sum of Rs. 25,000/-, Venkatachala Chetty and PW4 were also there. But the same

is not the evidence of PW4, nor is it found incorporated in Ex.P4 complaint. However, PW5 in his evidence has made an attempt to show that the

balance amount of Rs. 75,000/-was paid by his father on 28.11.2001 to the second Respondent/accused in the house of Venkatachala Chetty.

The said evidence is intended to be in tune with the evidence of PW4, which is contrary to the contents of the complaints as indicated supra. It is

also the evidence of PW5 that Venkatachala Chetty gave a sum of Rs. 75,000/-to PW2-Kannappan; that PW2 -Kannappan counted the same

and then handed it over to the second Respondent/accused and that similarly his father namely PW1 gave a sum of Rs. 75,000/-to Kannappan and

it was Kannappan, who inturn gave it to the second Respondent/accused. This is quite contra to the evidence of PW4. PW4''s evidence is to the

effect that his grandfather Venkatachala Chetty gave the amount of Rs. 75,000/-directly to the second Respondent/accused, but in the presence of

witnesses and that similarly PW1 also gave a sum of Rs. 75,000/-directly to the second Respondent/accused. It is not his evidence that both the

persons paid the amount through Kannappan.

In this regard PW5 has also deposed contrary to his statement recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure He was successfully

contradicted by bringing to his notice that he did not give such a statement to the effect that a sum of Rs. 75,000/-was paid through Jayaraman and

by subsequently proving that no such statement was made by him by eliciting necessary answer from the Investigating Officer, namely PW6.

PW1''s evidence is some what different. It is his evidence that the second installment of Rs. 75,000/-was paid by Venkatachala Chetty to the

second Respondent/accused directly and the second Respondent/accused received it from Venkatachala Chetty directly, whereas a sum of Rs.

75,000/-paid by PW1 as second installment was paid through Kannappan. The evidence of other witnesses, namely PW2-Kannappan and PW3

Pandurangan are also not free from flaws. PW3-Pandurangan would say that he went to the Taylor shop of PW1 to get the dresses, stitching of

which he had ordered for his daughter, who had attained puberty; that when he went there, PW1 was not there and after enquiry he went to the

house of Venkatachala Chetty in search of PW1 and that there he witnessed PW1 and Venkatachala Chetty paying Rs. 75,000/-each to the

second Respondent/accused. But the testimony of PW3 itself is self contradictory. At one place, he says that after he reached the taylor shop of

PW1, PW1 went out informing him that he was proceeding towards Venkatachala Chetty urgently and that thereafter he also followed him to the

house of Venkatachala Chetty. At another place he would state that when he reached the taylor shop of PW1, he was not found there and on

enquiry with one Sakthivel, who was found in the nearby tea shop, he pointed out the direction in which PW1 had gone and that when he went in

that direction he found PW1 near the house of Venkatachala Chetty. Apart from that he would also state that he only witnessed PW1 and

Venkatachala Chetty paying Rs. 75,000/-each to the second Respondent/accused, but he did not know what was the purpose for which the said

amounts were paid by them. The same is quite contrary to the evidence of the other witnesses and is also unbelievable.

So far as the evidence of PW2-Kannappan is concerned, it is his evidence that Venkatachala Chetty paid a sum of Rs. 75,000/-to the second

Respondent/accused and the second Respondent /accused received it. It is not his evidence that he got that amount from Venkatachala Chetty,

counted it and then handed it over to the second Respondent/accused. In this regard, there is material contradictions between his evidence and the

evidence of the other witness, namely PW1 and PW5. It is also the evidence of PW2 that PW1 gave the second Respondent/accused some

amount keeping the same in a box and he did not how much was there in the box. It is his further evidence that it was the statement made by PW1

at that point of time that he was making payment of a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. This is quite contra to the evidence of Pws 1, 4 and 5. Pws 4 and 5

would state that the amount was paid through PW2 and PW2 after counting the same handed it over to the second Respondent/accused, whereas

the evidence of PW2 in this regard is contrary to what PW1 and PW5 have stated. PW4''s evidence is to the effect that it was the second

Respondent/accused who received the amounts directly from Venkatachala Chetty and PW1 and that the Respondent No. 2/accused got the

amounts, counted the same and then put them in the box. In this regard, there is a material contradiction between the evidence of PW1 and PW4

also.

Further more, PW1, during Cross examination, has stated that he had lodged a complaint with the police in January 2003 at Kadathur Police

Station. The said evidence of PW1 will make it obvious that neither Ex.P1 nor Ex.P4 could be the original document, based on which the police

were given information. Not stopping with the statement that he gave a complaint in January 2003 at Kadathur Police Station, he would also state

that the police conducted an enquiry. Similar is the evidence of PW4. PW4 would say that he and his grandfather lodged a complaint with the

Superintendent of Police. PW5 Senthil Kumar, in his evidence, has stated that they have lodged a complaint in Kadathur Police Station and

Kadathur Police also enquired into the matter. He has also stated that his father and Venkatachala Chetty also gave a complaint in the office of

Superintendent of Police. There is no explanation from the prosecution as to what happened to the complaint allegedly given in Kadathur Police

Station and the complaint allegedly given to the Superintendent of Police. PW6, the Investigating Officer, would say that he did not receive any

other complaint except the two received from the Collectorate. Therefore, apart from there being inordinate delay, there are materials to raise a

reasonable suspicion that previous complaints have been burked and complaints prepared after due deliberation have been pressed into service.

It is the further contention of the prosecution that Pws 4 and 5 were taken by the Respondent No. 2/accused to a lodge in Chennai and there,

a fake interview was conducted and their signatures were obtained in blank papers. It is the further case of the prosecution that after conducting a

mock interview and getting the signatures of Pws 4 and 5 in blank papers, second Respondent/accused left the lodge informing them that he had an

urgent job in the village and he would be back in two days; that thereafter did not come back to Chennai and that Pws 4 and 5 after staying in the

lodge for 5 or 6 days, were drained of all money and left with no money for their survival, they had to return back to their native place. It is curious

to note that there is no evidence as to the name of the lodge to which Pws 4 and 5 were taken and were made to undergo a mock interview. They

are graduates and they are not laymen. They, having not been put in confinement or under any other form of surveillance, could have very well

known the name of the lodge, the area in which the lodge situates in Chennai and the room number. They are not in a position to furnish these

particulars. The Investigating Officer has also not chosen to enquire into these aspects. The investigation itself is defective in so far as no attempt

was made by the Investigating Officer to find out the lodge and verify the records of the lodge to find out the room allegedly used by the accused

for putting Pws 4 and 5 to fake interview.

It is also pertinent to note that the second Respondent/accused has also taken a stand that his brother-in-law Dinakar Prasad was one among

the persons who were cheated by one Ramani of Selam; that the said Dinakar Prasad had been introduced to the said Ramani by Pws 4 and 5;

that after having been cheated by the said Ramani, who was introduced by Pws 4 and 5, the second Respondent/accused was finding fault with

them and demanding Pws 4 and 5 to pay the money for having taken his brother-in-law to the said Ramani to be cheated by him and that the same

was the reason, why the complaints were preferred by the PW1 and Venkatachala Chetty. In this regard, the suggestion made on behalf of the

second Respondent /accused that a complaint against the said Ramani had been lodged and that the said Ramani had applied to the High Court for

anticipatory bail, has not been denied by the prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, they would simply plead ignorance. In the light of the said

answer pleading ignorance by the prosecution witnesses, the documents Exs.P2 series and P3 series assume more importance. Ex.P2 is produced,

as copies of the list of persons seeking employment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through trade unions, the application and fake appointment

order of PW5 Senthil Kumar and the receipt for contribution to the Workers Union of Basin Bridge Thermal Power Station. Ex.P3 is said to be

copies similar other documents including a fake appointment order issued to PW4. It is pertinent to note that the said Dinakar Prasad, brother-in-

law of the second Respondent / accused was also shown as one of the job seekers in Ex.P3. There is one undated document, in which the agent''s

name is shown to be V.C. Ramani.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, after meticulously examining those documents found in Ex.P2 series and ExP3 series, have made a clear

observation to the effect that the said documents bear the dates subsequent to the date on which the defacto complainant PW1, PW4 and PW5

realized that they were cheated and they demanded repayment of the amount. There is no reliable evidence to show where from they got those

documents and how those documents came to be produced by the police. It is the clear admission of PW6-Investigating Officer that in the

statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, they do not refer to Exs.P2 series and Ex.P3 series and that no mahazar was prepared for

the recovery of those documents. The learned Judicial Magistrate has also pointed out the fact that majority of those documents came to be dated

subsequent to the date on which the Pws 4 and 5 came to their village, after releasing that they were cheated and that therefore, those documents

would not have been the documents handed over by the second Respondent/accused to Pws 4 and 5, to make them believe that he had got

appointment orders for them. It is also an admission made by PW6, the Investigating Officer that he did make any attempt to find out what

happened to the originals of Ex.P2 series and Ex.P3 series. Therefore, the doubt expressed by the learned Judicial Magistrate regarding the

reliability of Ex.P2 series and Ex.P3 series is a quite reasonable, which definitely affects the prosecution case.

Yet another aspect is also worth mentioning. All the prosecution witnesses, implicating the second Respondent/accused, referred to the Power

Generation Station at Kalpakkam as Thermal Power project, whereas the documents found in Ex.P2 series and Ex.P3 series refer to the Workers

Union of Thermal Power Station at Basin Bridge. The power station that is available at Kalpakkam is Atomic Power Project and not Thermal

Power project using coal as fuel. It is also an admission made by the prosecution witnesses that the second Respondent/accused is a teacher in a

rural village and he was not known for having any influence with the Government officials or officials of the Electricity Board. Under such

circumstances, it is highly doubtful, if he would have been believed to be able to secure a job for Pws 4 and 5, to make Venkatachala Chetty and

PW1 pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-each.

It is also pertinent to note that Venkatachala Chetty and PW1, according to the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, chose to

ensure that witnesses were present when second installment of Rs. 75,000/-was paid by each one them. That being so, it is quite surprising that

they have not chosen to get any document from the second Respondent/accused in acknowledgment of having received such amount. It is also the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses that after they realized that second Respondent/accused had cheated them, Venkatachala Chetty and PW1

were able to get back Rs. 50,000/-and Rs. 20,000/-respectively. But it is quite surprising to note that even at that point of time, they did not

choose to get any undertaking in writing from him for the payment of the balance amount, even though it happened to be their case that he

promised and took time for making payment.

If all the above said aspects are taken into consideration, one can come to no other conclusion than the one that the prosecution case is

surrounded with suspicious circumstances, which are reasonable and that hence the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

On a proper consideration and evaluation of the evidence, the Court below has arrived at a correct conclusion that the charges made against the

second Respondent/accused were not proved and that he was entitled to be acquitted. As pointed out supra, even in cases where the evidence

admit two possible conclusions, one in favour of the accused and the other in favour of the prosecution, the conclusion in favour of the accused

should be preferred. When the appreciation of evidence admits such possible conclusions or equal force and the trial Court has preferred to adopt

the conclusion in favour of the accused, the appellate Court, simply because it comes to the conclusion that the other view is also possible and it

prefers to adopt the other view, shall not interfere with the judgment of the acquittal. This case is a better case for the second Respondent/accused.

It cannot be said that two views are possible and those two views are of equal force to prefer any one of the view. As indicated above, in the light

of the contradictions and discrepancies pointed out supra, the only possible conclusion that can be arrived at is that the prosecution has not proved

its case beyond reasonable doubt and that therefore, the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the second Respondent/accused does not suffer

from any defect or infirmity. There is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the same and the criminal revision case deserves to be dismissed as

there is no merit in it.

In the result, this petition is dismissed.