Oral Judgment:
1. The present appeal, under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 4.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Case No. 9 of 1996, whereby, the learned trial Judge acquitted the original accused - the respondent herein, of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 8(1) and 13(1) of the Rice Polished Regulation Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on receiving information about the illegal work of rice polishing was being done by the accused person in his house, and therefore, on 20.2.1996, Officers of Civil Supplies Department have visited the premises and found that the accused is doing the rice polishing work without any pass or permit in his premises. Therefore, Superintendent of Civil Supplies Department has submitted his report to the District Magistrate. On 25.7.1996, the District Magistrate has ordered to lodge complaint before the Morva Police Station against the accused, and therefore, a complaint was lodged before the Morva Police Station under section 8(1) read with section 13(1) of the Rice Polished Regulation Act. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded.
During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against him, which was numbered as Special Case No. 9 of 1999. The trial was initiated against the respondent.
3. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
4. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against them by judgment and order dated 4.3.1997.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
6. It was contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law; the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence and submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.
7. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of an appeal by this Court, against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, have been very succinctly explained by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. In the case of "M.S. NARAYANA MENON @ MANI VS. STATE OF KERALA and ANR", (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39, the Apex Court has narrated the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under;
"54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below."
8. Further, in the case of "CHANDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA", reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415, the Apex Court laid down the following principles;
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;
[1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
[2] 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.
[3] Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasis 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.
[4] 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.
[5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court."
9. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate powers, even if two reasonable views / conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
10. Even in the case of "STATE OF GOA Vs. SANJAY THAKRAN and ANR.", reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision, the Court has observed as under;
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with."
11. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in cases of "STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAM VEER SINGH and ORS.", 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in "GIRJA PRASAD (DEAD) BY L.R.s VS. STATE OF MP", 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled.
12. In the case of "LUNA RAM VS. BHUPAT SINGH AND ORS.", reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10 and 11 has held as under;
"10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the postmortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition.
11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence."
13. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of "MOOKKIAH AND ANR. VS. STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU", reported in AIR 2013 SC 321, the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:
"4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellants very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be reappreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC573]"
14. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. HEMAREDDY", AIR 1981, SC 1417, wherein it is held as under;
"...This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93:(AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice."
15. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court in "SHIVASHARANAPPA and ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA", JT 2013 (7) SC 66 has held as under;
"That appellate Court is empowered to re- appreciate the entire evidence, though, certain other principles are also to be adhered to and it has to be kept in mind that acquittal results into double presumption of innocence."
16. Thus, in case the appellate court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary.
17. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellant-State. The reasonings given by the learned trial Judge in para-7 are such that no interference is called for in the said judgment. Ms. Shah learned APP has not been able to point out that the judgment is so perverse that on the touch-stone of the latest decision of the Apex Court, this Court should up-turn the said judgment. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, and therefore, no case is made out for interference just because the accused was having a machine which he had recently purchased, it cannot be said that the judgment of the learned trial Judge is perverse which calls for interference by this Court. Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court. Ms. Shah ld. APP is not able to bring home the charge levelled against the accused and persuaded this Court to take a different view than that taken by the learned trial Judge in view of the catena of decisions of the Apex Court and the latest decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 153. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
18. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against them. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same.
19. In the result, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. R and P to be sent back to the trial Court. Bail bond and bail, if any, stands cancelled. Surety also, if any given, stands discharged.