Judgment:
CRA-S-97-DBA o”
1. In the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRA-S-97-DBA of 1997 Date of decision:
11. 03.2013 State of Haryana ……Appellant Versus Hari Om and others …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Present: Mr.Deepak Girhotra, AAG Haryana for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J.
(Oral) This appeal has been filed against judgment of acquittal dated 24.4.1996 acquitting respondent Nos.1 to 3 of the charges framed against them.
Above respondents were named as accused in FIR No.319 dated 25.8.1994.
It was an allegation against them that they had kidnapped Manot minot son of Om Parkash, kept him in unlawful confinement and demanded Rs.80,000/- towards ransom.
On getting information, the above detenue was recovered.
Thereafter, the investigating officer ASI Satpal Singh (PW2) recorded statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial.
Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused as per norMs.Case was committed to the competent Court for trial vide order dated 9.1.1995.
The above CRA-S-97-DBA o”
2. respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution produced six witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case.
On conclusion of prosecution's evidence, separate statements of all the respondents-accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.Incriminating circumstances appearing against them on record were put to them which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication.
It was also stated by them that on account of some property dispute, they have falsely been implicated in this case.
They led no evidence in defence.
The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence, found the respondents -accused not guilty and by giving them benefit of doubt, they were acquitted of the charges framed against them.
When giving benefit of acquittal to the respondents, the trial Judge has noted as under:- “From the evidence of SI Pirthi Singh and HC Jaipal Singh it appears that on reciept of a tip off at Bahalgarh crossing on the GT road at 10.00 PM on 25.8.1994, SI Pirthi Singh accompanied by Mahabir Singh and some police personnel including HC Jaipal Singh and HC Kanwal Singh went to the house of Bablu accused, situated in village Chauhan Joshi and found accused Hari Om and Naresh guarding the room in the house of Bablu which was locked from outside and on opening the room he found Manot sitting in a corner of the room and Bablu accused standing near him in the room.
Evidence of Manot PW-3 kidnapped boy shows that after being kidnapped from his house he was taken by Hari CRA-S-97-DBA o”
3. Om accused to a bus stand where the Bablu and Naresh accused met them and told him that his father had met with an accident and he wants to see him.
From his evidence it would further appear that from Bus stand he was taken to the bye- pass where accused persons boarded another bus going to Narela.
Accused persons alongwith Manot alightned from the bus on a inter-section of the GT road and confined him in a room of Narela locality of Delhi.
Om Parkash PW-4 father of Manot Kumar has deposed that he recieved information from the police station Rai that his son has been recovered from the custody of the accused on 25.8.1994.
He himself, Dharambir and his brother and a large number of residents of Jahaingirpuri Delhi went to police station Rai.
They reached police station at 10.00 AM on 25.8.1994.
HC Jaipal PW-5 has further deposed that accused were apprehended at about 12.30 AM on 26.8.1994.
SI Pirthi Singh has also deposed that he reached village Chauhan Joshi at about 10 minutes past 10.00 PM on 25.8.1994 and he stayed there with all his companions in the house of accused Bablu upto 8.00 AM of 26.8.1994.
This means that SI Pirthi Singh must have returned to the police station on 26.8.1994 after 8.00 AM.
If SI Pirthi Singh returned to the police station on 26.8.94 after 8.00 AM, Om Parkash would not have met his son in the police station Rai on 25.8.1994 at 10.00 AM whereas according to the testimony of Manoj, complainant, when the police rescued him from the CRA-S-97-DBA o”
4. room situated in Narela Delhi State, accused Bablu and Naresh were with him inside the room and Hari Om accused was guarding the room from out side.
From the statement of SI Pirthi Singh and HC Jaipal Singh, however, it appears that when they reached the house of accused Bablu situated at village Chauhan Jhoshi, Distt.
Sonepat they found accused Hari Om and Naresh sitting outside a locked room and on unlocking the room, Manot was found sitting in corner of the room and Bablu was standing near him.
The discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses are so serious that these can not be reconciled.
In view of the serious discrepancies in the evidednce of the prosecution, it is difficult to place any reliance upon the statement of the prosecution witnesses.”
The trial Judge has analysed the statements made by all the prosecution witnesses to say that their statements were not believable.
The trial Judge has thrashed the entire evidence in a threadbare manner.
Furthermore, no injury was caused to the detenue, namely, Manoj.
There is nothing on record that any ransom was demanded.
The opinion expressed is as per law.
The law to interfere in a judgment of acquittal is well settled.
It is only in those cases where there are compelling circumstances and judgment under challenge is perverse, the appellate Court can interfere with an order of acquittal.
The appellate Court is supposed to bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and that the trial Court’s acquittal order further strengthen that presumption.
Interference in a routine manner, CRA-S-97-DBA o”
5. where other view may be possible, should be avoided unless there are good reasons to do the same.
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Allarakha K.Mansuri v.
State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 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 (Criminal) 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 v.
State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166.which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perveRs.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 v.
Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 75.and in Chandrappa v.
State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415.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 CRA-S-97-DBA o”
6. 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 reveRs.the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.”
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602.the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “7.
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.”
8. 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.
CRA-S-97-DBA o”
7. 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:- “10.
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 appellant has failed to indicate any misreading of oral as well as documentary evidence on record by the trial Court.
No CRA-S-97-DBA o”
8. case is made out for interference.
Dismissed.
11.03.2013 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge