State of Guj vs Rathod Dilipsinh G.

J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—The appellant - State of Gujarat preferred this appeal u/s 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the legality and validity of impugned judgment and order rendered by learned J.M.F.C., Idar on 9.3.1994, recording acquittal of the respondent herein - original accused in Criminal Case No. 1080 of 1992 from the charge of offences punishable u/s 323, 324, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

The prosecution case in nutshell is that the incident occurred on 10.7.1992 at 7 am in the village called Limbhoi, Tal. Idar. At the time of the incident, the first informant Dayaji Nathaji, injured witness Revaji Nathaji and witness Laxmanji Nathaji had visited Milk Society of their village for giving the milk. The respondent - accused was working with said Society. With regard to the measurement of the milk, there was some altercation with respondent - accused and the accused spoke abusive language and abruptly sprinkled acid on the body of injured witness Revaji Nathaji. In the incident, witness Manjulaben also sustained injuries. First informant Dayaji Nathaji lodged first information report in Idar police station, which came to be registered. Police commenced investigation. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of the learned Magistrate, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 1080 of 1992.

Charge came to be framed at Exh.14, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After the completion of the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, the further statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., to which the accused denied generally all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution and stated that at the time of the incident, witness Revaji Nathaji started quarrel with him and he was assaulted by Revaji Nathaji and to save himself from the assault, he raised his hand and at that time, the vessel (tapeli), which was in the hand of Revaji Nathaji abruptly came in contact with the bulb containing the acid and bulb was broken and the acid was sprinkled. After appreciating the evidence on record and the submission made on behalf of both the sides, the learned Magistrate recorded the acquittal of the respondent - accused. Therefore, the State challenged the impugned judgment and order by preferring this appeal u/s 378 of the Cr.P.C.

Learned APP Mr. Mengdey for the appellant - State submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and facts on record. That the prosecution examined eye-witnesses and trial Court should have accepted their evidence. That their evidence is consistent, trustworthy and reliable. The injuries sustained by the witnesses have been narrated by the Medical Officer examined by the prosecution in this case. The trial Court should have believed the medical evidence on record. The ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution is supported by cogent and convincing circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed.

None appeared for the respondent.

I have considered the record and proceedings of the case. First informant Dayaji Nathaji in his evidence deposed that the accused sprinkled acid on the head of injured witness Revaji. He stated that in the incident, witnesses Laxmanji and Manjulaben also sustained injuries. The dispute was about the measurement of the milk. In his cross-examination he says that when he reached to the scene of offence, his brother Revaji had fallen on the ground and about 20 to 25 persons had gathered. He stated that at the time of the incident, he was at his residence and on listening the sound of quarrel, he reached to the spot. Under such circumstances, it becomes doubtful as to whether the first informant had seen the actual commission of the offence.

6.1 Injured Revaji Nathaji stated that about the issue of measurement of milk, the accused started quarreling with him and while he was coming back to his home, the accused sprinkled acid and he sustained burn injuries. In his entire evidence, he does not say as to while he was going towards his home from the Milk Society, actually at which place the accused sprinkled acid after chasing him. Witness Laxmanji Shankarji does not support the case of the prosecution and was treated as hostile witness. However, considering the evidence of witness Manjulaben Ramaji, she stated that the accused inflicted blow of the bottle containing acid on the head of injured Revaji. It is neither the case of the prosecution nor the evidence of witness Revaji that the accused had inflicted blow of the bottle itself, containing the acid on the head of Revaji. Considering the evidence of witness, Chaguji Motiji, it is almost on the same line. The accused examined witness Sajjansinh as defence witness, who is Secretary in the Milk Society and according to his evidence, at the time of the incident, about the measurement of milk, it was the injured witness Revaji, who started quarreling with the accused and the accused was assaulted by Revaji, and with a view to save himself, the accused raised his hand and in that process, the acid, which was there in the bulb, came to be sprinkled, as the bulb was broken.

6.2 The prosecution examined Dr. Parshottambhai Kalabhai, who had examined Revaji Nathaji, Laxmanji Shankarji and Manjulaben and had issued medical certificates. In his cross-examination, Doctor opined that if acid is intentionally sprinkled, injuries, which he described, may not be caused.

In the impugned judgment, the learned Magistrate considered and appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and assigning cogent and convincing reasons, recorded the acquittal of the respondent-accused.

In the case of Chandrappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka,

An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.

Various expressions, such as, ''substantial and compelling reasons'', ''good and sufficient grounds'', ''distorted conclusions'', ''glaring mistakes'', etc. are not intended to 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.

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.

If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not be disturbed by the appellate court.

Considering the ratio laid down by the Honourable the Apex Court in the ruling, and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that there is no reason whatsoever for this Court to interfere with impugned judgment and order rendered by the learned Magistrate, recording acquittal of the respondent - accused. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed.