Shanti Devi vs State of Punjab and others

Jasbir Singh, J.—This application has been filed u/s 378 (4) Cr.P.C., seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 9.3.2011, acquitting respondent No.2 of the charges framed against her.

An FIR bearing No.132 dated 28.7.2008 was recorded against respondent No.2-Veena Devi along with Ratno, Som Raj and Mohan Lal. It was allegation against them that all the four had been mal-treating Jyoti daughter of the applicant for bringing less dowry and when their demand was not met, she was killed by poisoning on 28.7.2008, whereupon an FIR u/s 304B IPC was registered against above named accused.

Respondent No.2 is sister-in-law of the deceased and was a minor. Her case was separated and sent before the Juvenile Justice Board under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The prosecution, to prove its case, produced three witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. On conclusion of prosecution''s evidence, statement of respondent No.2 was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to her, which she denied, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, she led no evidence in defence.

The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence found her not guilty and accordingly, she was acquitted. When acquitting her, the trial Judge has rightly noticed that both the prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Smt. Shanti Devi (the applicant) and PW2 Harbans Lal have failed to levell any specific allegation against respondent No.2. It was stated in general terms that the juvenile/ respondent No.2 along with other members of the family, had been demanding dowry and mal-treating the deceased.

Respondent No.2 is the un-married daughter of the family. On perusal of paper book, we are satisfied that an attempt was made to falsely implicate her in this case. Sufficient reasons to acquit her have been given by the trial Judge.

The opinion expressed by the trial Judge is as per as per law and is based upon proper appreciation of evidence.

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Cri) 748, held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court.

A Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Cri) 775, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-

We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a mis-reading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference.

Similarly, in State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran and Another, and in Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, it was held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.

In Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479, decided on September 5, 2011, the Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.

Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.

The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for.

Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:-

There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience.

Counsel for the applicant has failed to indicate any misreading of evidence which may necessitate interference by this Court. No other error in law has been indicated.

The appeal is also barred by limitation. No case is made out to condone delay as well.

Dismissed.

However, any observation made in this order shall not affect rights of both the parties in any other litigation.