Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1943 CRA(V) NO. 36 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 104/2012 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT (VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN) CP 5/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOCHI APPELLANTS: 1 JACOB JOSE, AGED 23 YEARS S/O. JOSE. V.G. CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2 ANTONY JOSE,AGED 22 YEARS S/O. JOSE. V.G. CHERANALLOOR VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS:
1 ANTONY, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. AUGUSTINE, THAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALAMUTTAM ROAD, EDAKOCHI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 010. 2 STATE OF KERALA,, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.JOSHI ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SRI.T.S.NAZIMUDDIN V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH V.JOHN THOMAS RALPH RETI JOHN SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.G.P. (ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND WELFARE OF W AND C)(GP-38)
THIS CRL.A BY DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/VICTIM HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 2 - K. Vinod Chandran & C.Jayachandran,JJ. --------------------------------------- Crl.A.(V) No.36 of 2019 -------------------------------------- Dated, this 25th February, 2022
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
Charity or perfidy is the question raised in the
appeal where the prosecution alleged that the Managing Trustee of a charitable children's home sexually abused the children, left to his care. The learned Counsel for the appellants, who are the victims, submit that the children were admitted in the charitable home only by reason of the penury of the parents and the person in
charge of the Home, under the cloak of a protector, turned predator. The respondent vehemently asserts that the prosecution is malicious and ill-motivated; a direct off shoot of the disputes pending in the Civil Court with respect to the administration of the Trust. The accused was acquitted of the charges by the trial court, against which the victims filed the above appeal. The allegation was that the appellants and other children, inmates of the Home were repeatedly subjected to sexual molestation
Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 3 - by the Managing Trustee of the Trust under which the children's home is run.
2. Sri.M.Revikrishnan, learned Counsel appearing
for the appellants point out that both the appellants examined as PWs.2 and 3 spoke of the atrocities committed on them. At least in the case of PW3 there is absolutely no contradiction and his evidence is fully corroborated
by Ext.P14 medical report. The delay in raising a complaint is only because of the penurious condition in which the appellants were living. The appellants while they were in the Home were naturally, also intimidated by the authority wielded by the accused who was running the Home. The objection raised by the defence, regarding the period in which the appellants were housed in the Home, has been rendered unsustainable going by the evidence of
PW15, Head Master (H.M) of the school in which the appellants studied. PW15 categorically stated that in the year 2006-07 the appellants were attending school from the Home and the period tallies with the time when the alleged acts were committed on the children. The time also tallies with the occurrence and continuation of the symptoms complained of by PW3; a direct result of the
Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 4 - alleged molestation of sodomy.
3. The allegation raised of malicious prosecution is just to escape the clutches of law and the civil suits
pending between the parties cannot lead to such a presumption. If the allegations, as spoken of by the victims, are found to be true, the civil disputes cannot be presumed to be the motive; to condone the dastardly acts committed by the accused on the minor children. Delay is natural in the settings in which the incident
happened as also the circumstances of the penurious family. In any event the mother told the Doctor, PW4 and when PW1, another trustee came to know of the same,
immediately informed the authorities. The fact that only two children stuck to their allegations and appeared in Court cannot go in favor of the accused. The consideration of Courts in such cases should be laced with compassion and the delay in reporting is inconsequential, as held in Childline India Foundation v. Allan John Waters (2011) 6 SCC 261. Learned Counsel argued that corroboration is not imperative, where the victim of sexual offence clearly speaks on the atrocity, relying on State of Kerala v. Kurissum Moottil Antony, Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 5 -
(2007) 1 SCC 627. If not a reversal, at least an open remand should be made is the fervent plea made by the Counsel.
4. Sri.John S Ralph, learned Counsel appearing for
the respondent/accused pointed out that the FIS was made after Ext.D11 plaint was filed before the Civil Court. The statements in Ext.D10 deposition, as also in the FIS clearly indicate, instigation by an Irish lady who had earlier contributed to the Trust. There is serious inconsistency with respect to how PW1, the first informant, came to know of the allegations. He admits to have been motivated by the Irish lady to get the accused evicted from the Trust, which is the motive behind the
criminal proceedings initiated. There is gross suppression on the part of the prosecuting agency, the victims, the mother and the hospital authorities. PW3 was taken to the Government Hospital from the Home, according to him; the details of which were not produced before Court. Even the prosecution was not aware of Ext.P14 and the said document was summoned at the request of the
Counsel for the victims who was assisting the prosecution. We were taken through Ext.P14, to point out Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 6 - that PW3 was a regular patient from 2001. No earlier complaint, identical to that emphasized by the appellants, was made till the history spoken of on 23.01.2009 in Ext. P14, of symptoms existing for the past three years. There is no evidence to establish that the particular symptom was a direct result of the alleged act of sodomy.
5. It is pointed out that there was no mention of the appellant's name in the FIS. PW8 who was named in the FIS turned hostile and there was even a complaint raised by himself and his grandmother against PW1 for threatening and coercing PW8 to give false evidence. PW3 though admits to a Counseling, has not revealed any of
the allegations now made, to the Counselor who was examined as PW9. Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 medical certificates have been procured, but all the same does not bring out anything incriminating. The case originated with a complaint to the I.G of Police wherein admittedly statements of six children were taken, none of which are produced before Court. Learned Counsel relies on Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat & Ashok Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan to impress upon us the principles governing Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 7 - a reversal of acquittal in an appeal. Learned Counsel points out that a person who had given up a normal life for a noble cause was maliciously prosecuted and he is entitled to compensation.
6. Ext.P1 is the FIS in which only broad but
omnibus allegations are made. It speaks of there being a marked change in the character of the accused, after money started pouring into the institution, managed by the Trust, of which the accused was the Managing Trustee and the first informant, one of the trustees. It was
alleged that money earmarked for the welfare of the children was diverted and used for personal purposes and there was no proper care given to the children admitted to the Home. The allegation extended to drinking bouts of the accused with the locals and unnatural sexual offences committed on the male inmates of the Home. The first informant spoke of the accused having forced the children to sit on his lap and then kissed and fondled them. It was alleged that he used to display blue films to the
inmates and have sex with the maid in view of the inmates. It was asserted that when such activities were questioned, he was forcefully evicted from the Home. Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 8 -
7. In the FIS, it was specifically stated that certain children complained to PW1 about the atrocities
committed on them and that Dr.Stella, PW4, who was appointed to look after the health of the children had reported rampant spread of sexually transmitted diseases amongst the children. It is pertinent that no names of the victims were mentioned in the FIS. Even before Court, the only name mentioned by PW1 was that of PW8, who turned hostile. In the FIS and before Court, PW1 said
that he had filed the criminal proceedings on
instructions from the Irish lady who was a major benefactor of the children's home. Though PW1, in the FIS, did not state the day on which he left the Home, before Court he categorically stated that he left the Home on the night of 16.05.2008; after having objected to the accused molesting PW8, which he witnessed. PW1 also deposed that even after he left, many children told him over phone, about the sexually deviant behaviour of the accused and the atrocities perpetrated on them, which promoted him to file the complaint marked as Ext.P1. Obviously he waited for two years before he raked up the issue and that too after the civil suit was initiated.
Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 9 -
8. In chief examination, PW1 said that the first
complaint he made, was Ext.P1, to the Inspector General of Police and later he had given one more complaint to the I.G. PW1 admitted the civil proceedings, the plaint
in which was marked as Ext.D11. He admitted to have stated in the plaint that the criminal proceedings were initiated on the direction of the Irish lady; who wanted the accused to be removed from the Trust, by whatever means. PW1 also, in his deposition, before the civil court, marked as Ext.D10, stated that he first came to know of the atrocities of the accused through an e-mail
sent by the Irish lady, which he denied in cross examination, in the instant criminal trial. However, he admitted to have raised no objection to what was recorded in his deposition, Ext.D10, before the civil court. In cross examination he said that the first complaint, Ext.P1 was dated 17.05.2010 and the second complaint was dated 29.05.2010. In the same breath, he also said that his first complaint was before the Sub Inspector, Thoppumpady, before institution of the civil case. He also admitted that there was a complaint by PW8 and his grand mother, that they were threatened by PW1 to give Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 10 - false evidence against the accused and on a complaint raised before the police, PW1 was warned to keep away. He never denied the said allegations. PW1, in the deposition resiled from his earlier statement of PW4 having been appointed to look after the health of the children, in the Home.
9. It has to be observed that PW1 is not a
trustworthy witness and his motive in instituting the complaint is suspect. PW1 admits that he was in charge of looking after the children and the accused was in over
all charge as the Managing Trustee. Though he speaks of complaints having been made by the children, he does not name any victim in the FIS and the one named before Court, turned hostile. Relevant is also the fact that the victims herein, PW2 and PW3 allege molestation between 2006 and 2007. PW1 admittedly, during that period was in the Home, entrusted with the care and welfare of the children; he having left only in the year 2008. Even then he did not make a complaint and later, after he was sent out of the Home, when he was informed over telephone by some children, he did not take up the issue even then. It is much later, in the year 2010, after the civil suit was
Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 11 - filed that PW1 instituted the complaint. On PW1's own showing he had instituted the complaint in the year 2010, on the instruction of the Irish lady, who was the benefactor of the Home. But for the statement that she was the benefactor, even PW1 does not speak of any office or authority held by the Irish lady in the charitable institution or the Trust.
10. Despite our finding that PW1 is not trustworthy, we have to necessarily examine the allegation raised by the victims/appellants before Court as supported by the other evidence and their prior statements. PWs.2 and 3 are the siblings who were the subjects of the alleged molestation. They were minor children at the time of the alleged acts, but were past
their prime and full grown adults at the time of deposition. Both of them asserted that they were in the Home for the academic year 2006-07, though to the police they had stated that they were first admitted in May,
2005. We have looked at the deposition of PW15, the HM of
the school, which only indicates the victims having studied in the said school in the academic year 2006-07. For the time being we will assume that they were in the Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 12 - home for that academic year.
11. PW2 & 3 affirmed that they were admitted to
the institution on a suggestion made by PW4, to their mother, PW5; confirmed by both the said witnesses. PW2 spoke of an instance, when the other inmates were not available, the accused took him to his lap, kissed him and sodomised him. Another instance was also stated,
where he was subjected to forceful fellatio by the accused, in the personal room of the accused, adjacent to the TV room. Yet another instance spoken of was in the night, when PW2, who was running a fever, was taken to the TV hall, where the other children were moved to the sides and PW2 forced to do fellatio in the middle of the room, in the dim TV light. Here, we cannot but notice an element of exaggeration; when none of the children or their parents complained of such acts. The hyperbole is also evident in the FIS, which speaks of the accused having had sex with the maid in front of the inmates of the Home. We would not dismiss the same as impossible since none can fathom the depths of depravity of sexual deviants; especially paedophiles. But what stares us in the face is the total absence of complaints regarding
Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 13 - such public display of depravity, by any of the inmates or the parents and relatives of such inmates.
12. Both PW2 and PW3 deposed in chief-examination that after the summer vacations in the year 2007 they refused to go back to the Home. When their mother
persisted, they also told her about the molestation committed by the accused. The shocked mother went to the Home, raised a complaint and refused to send the children to the Home. PW2 & 3 identified the accused and also spoke of having given a statement to the Magistrate. In cross-examination PW2 said that he spoke of the molestation officially, first time to the police. PW2 along with PW3, also admitted that they were summoned by the Irish lady who had visited India and the mother and
children saw her in a hotel. There were two contradictions marked in cross-examination as to the smell of liquor on the accused and the fact of the
accused having bitten on the lips of PW2, having not been stated to the police. PW2 also alleged that he was subjected to repeated acts of molestation, other than the three specified, which were also not stated to the police. PW2 admitted that before he told the police, he Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 14 - had told his mother, PW5 and PW4, the Doctor. PW3 also spoke of regular instances of sodomy and fellatio in the
personal room of the accused. He also spoke of an infection between his thighs which was treated at the Government Hospital; for which no evidence is produced. He complained of stomach pain and constipation. In addition to his mother, he also spoke to PW9, the Counsellor. He asserted that he spoke of everything that he was subjected to, to the police and the Magistrate.
13. Before we go into the testimony of the other
witnesses, we look at the corroboration asserted by the learned Counsel for the appellants as coming forth from Ext.P14 case-sheet. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused, the case-sheet indicated regular consultation from 2001 onwards. In fact the testimony of PW14, the doctor-in-charge of Lourdes Hospital, who produced Ext.P14, makes it clear that there is lesser payment taken from the employees for medical treatment. In the period in which the allegations were said to have occurred, i.e., the academic year 2006-07, PW3 was regularly before various doctors in the Lourdes Hospital, where his mother was working; when no such complaints Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 15 - were made. The appellant had specifically pointed out at page 42 of Ext.P14 and the complaint recorded on 14.01.2009 of 'intermittent blood and mucus in stools - three years' and the colonoscopy conducted on 15.01.2009. The attempt of the appellant is to point out that the three year complaint spoken of in 2009 tallies with the period alleged, of molestation. In this context, the testimony of PW14 is relevant.
14. PW14 is the Doctor in charge of Medico-Legal cases, who produced and marked Ext.P14. Though he was not the Doctor who attended to PW3, from the case-sheet he
spoke of the complaints of PW3, which was recurrent abdominal pain in the lower abdomen. As per the case-sheet, according to PW14, PW2 was diagonised as having 'solitary rectal ulcer syndrome'. A leading
question was asked to him whether 'solitary rectal ulcer syndrome' may be due to sodomy(?) to which he answered 'may be'. But in cross-examination when a suggestion was made that medical science does not consider sodomy as a solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, his answer was that if the victim is subjected to recurrent anal penetration, there is possibility of injuries which would lead to
Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 16 -
rectal ulcer. Immediately it has to be noticed that the alleged acts were said to have been committed in the year 2006-07, during which period and after wards, the child was taken regularly to the hospital. There was never a complaint made till January, 2009 and by that time 1½ years had elapsed from the time PW3 was residing at the Home. The complaint spoken of, having persisted for the last three years, is the history spoken by the patient and not one medically affirmed.
15. It is very pertinent that the siblings never
talked to each other about the atrocities committed on them; which itself is very strange and that is a very strong circumstance in favour of the accused, considering the delay in raising such allegations, that too at the behest of PW1, who is admitted to be inimical towards the
accused. PW4 is the Doctor working in the Lourdes Hospital, who was acquainted with the accused and the mother of the victims; also employed in Lourdes Hospital along with her. It is due to the penurious circumstance of PW5 that PW4 advised her to admit the children to the Home. PW4 came to know of the atrocities on the children
only in 2008, after which the children were admitted in Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 17 - the Paediatric Ward. She also stated that she was upset at the revelation made by the children and had taken ill and was admitted in the hospital for 16 days. In cross- examination she was pointedly asked about her participation in the foundation stone laying ceremony of the Little Flower Medium School, under the Trust, when she said she did not know about the atrocities before that, ie: before 17.02.2008. In cross-examination she categorically stated that PW1 had never complained to her about the conduct of the Home. She also stated that she goes to the Home only when the Irish lady comes to India and such visits were confined to four times. She categorically stated that none of the children ever complained to her. These statements are in contradiction to the FIS which spoke of PW4 having been entrusted with the medical care of the children at the Home and she having complained of rampant spread of sexually transmitted diseases amongst the inmates of the Home.
16. PW5, the mother of the victims, heard about
the allegations from her children and spoke of it to PW4. She does not speak of any complaint having been made at the time when she went to the Home to get the children Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 18 - transferred from the school. Her deposition was also to the effect that the children had complained of being taken to the personal room of the accused in the night, where the children were subjected to molestation; quite contrary to the allegations made by PW2. PW7 is the Doctor who examined PWs.2 and 3 and issued Exts.P3 and P4 certificates. Exts.P3 and P4 certificates were both dated 05.06.2010. The history noticed, as spoken of by PWs.2 and 3, is the sexual molestation of the accused, but the period referred to is 2005-06 and not 2006-07. PW2 and 3 obviously referred to the period as 2005-06, to the police as brought out in the contradictions marked; which too is an inconsistency worth reckoning. Ext.P3 relating to PW2 showed no abnormalities on examination. PW3 complained of abdominal pain for three years and noticing the tenderness at the left lumbar region, surgery consultation was advised. There is no whisper of signs of sexual molestation in Ext.P3 & P4 or the deposition of PW7.
17. PW8 is another inmate who was alleged to have been molested, who turned hostile before Court. PW9 is the Psychologist who carried out the counselling of PW3. Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 19 -
She produced Ext.P5 certificate. According to her, the child spoke of stress in personal life and stomach pain. She stated that Ext.P5 was issued at the instance of the police. She does not speak of any allegation as reflected from the prosecution case or the deposition of PW3, having been confided to her. PW10 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered Ext.P6 FIR as per Ext.P1 FIS. He spoke of six statements of witnesses having been sent to him along with Ext.P1 FIS, which were not produced before Court. PW10's deposition was that the sexual abuse complained of, as revealed in investigation, was between 2005-2009.
18. Kurissum Moottil Antony (supra) was a case of
molestation of a 10 year old girl, wherein the accused was acquitted on the grounds of lack of corroboration and the earlier complaint of the girl having been suppressed. On facts it was found that there was no complaint made by the girl prior to the FIS lodged by her at the Police Station; where she went with her parents. Here PW1 speaks of an earlier complaint to the Sub Inspector, which has not seen the light of the day. On corroboration, it was found that the girl, who had turned Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 20 -
14 at the time of deposition had given a graphic description of the incident and it was held that: 'An accused cannot cling to a fossil formula and insist on corroborative evidence, even if taken as a whole, the case spoken to by the victim strikes a judicial mind as probable.'(sic). Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1952 SC 54 was quoted:
“The rule, which according to the cases has hardened into one of law, is not that corroboration is essential before there can be a conviction but that the necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances make it safe to dispense with it, must be present to the mind of the judge, …”
19. The various aspects noticed by us, does not commend us to act only on the testimony of the alleged victims. The delay in the present case is not as coming
out in Childline India Foundation (supra), which was relied on, to impress upon us the irrelevance of delay in cases of sexual abuse. There the victims of sexual abuse were street children who had no roof over their heads and none to care for; choosing the shelter homes by sheer compulsion. The atrocities came to light also by reason
of a concerted action initiated by public spirited persons. These persons, on the report of a Judicial Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 21 -
Committee, highlighting the plight of street children and the unconfirmed reports of sexual exploitation in one such shelter home, initiated criminal prosecution against the perpetrators who were in charge of that shelter home. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the delay does not disprove the allegations, especially in the context of the clear deposition of the two victims who testified. These victim-witnesses also had named the other victims; which justified the non examination of all the other victims. The instant case has been initiated by a person inimical towards the accused. The victims, though having left the Home in 2007, did not file a complaint till the time the police took their statements in a complaint filed by PW1. The victims admitted to have told their mother and even the Doctor who had suggested the Home to
the mother of the victims. None of them initiated a complaint and there is admitted testimony of a pressure, if not an instigation, by a foreign lady who was a benefactor of the Trust and the Home.
20. The circumstances as brought forth by the prosecution casts a cloud over the allegations raised. The accused admittedly was the Managing Trustee who had Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 22 -
over all charge of the Home and PW1 was in immediate charge of the children. But for PW2 and PW3, no other inmate or their parents or relatives made any complaint. Even PWs.2 and 3 for the first time officially raised the allegations to the police after PW1 made the FIS, Ext.P1. Ext.P1, as we already noticed, makes broad allegations
and that too exaggerated ones regarding financial indiscipline and sexual escapades of the accused. PW1 does not name any victim in the FIS, despite he having claimed to be in charge of the children and the children having complained to him about the atrocities committed by the accused. Such complaints, according to PW1 were
made while PW1 was in the Home and after he was unceremoniously evicted from there. The names of PWs.2 and 3 or even PW8, were not stated in the FIS. PW8, who was named in PW1's deposition, turned hostile.
21. PW1's definite statement was that he had
initiated the action on the instruction of the Irish lady who wanted the accused to be evicted from the Home and the Trust, by whatever means. There is also incongruity insofar as PW1 having claimed in the civil suit that he came to know of the atrocities from an e-mail sent by the Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 23 - Irish lady. PW1 also spoke of a prior complaint having been made to the S.I, which the S.I denied. PW2 added to the hyperbole in the FIS through his own exaggerations. PW3 only spoke of repeated instances of molestation. As emphasized by the trial Court, it is pertinent and quite
strange that the siblings never communicated between themselves about the atrocities committed on them. PW2 specifically deposes that PW3 never told him anything. PWs.2 and 3 complained to their mother after the summer vacations of 2007; but PW4, who was instrumental in their joining the Home, came to know of the allegations only in the year 2008. PW4, a close associate of the Irish lady and PW1, spoke quite contrary to each other, insofar as the communications between herself and PW1 as also her association with the Home.
22. We also do not think that any corroboration is
offered by Ext.P14. The complaints made by PW3 about intermittent blood and mucus in the stools and the same having been suffered for the last three years is, his recital, which is not supported by the medical records. The case sheet indicates PW3 having been constantly treated by various doctors in the very same Hospital from Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 24 - 2001 to 2009. The medical complaints made by him as spoken of by the Doctor could have been occasioned with constipation and not necessarily sodomy. In any event, the last act alleged would be prior to the summer vacation of 2007 and the said condition cannot develop after 1½ years and the condition, if persisting for more than three years, the child would definitely have revealed it to the Doctors, he was consulting regularly. We find no perceivable reason for the child to have not raised it with his parents or to the Doctors, with whom he had regular and frequent consultation. The two appellants, admitted that they had revealed the acts committed on them, to the mother and the Doctor. Hence there is no question of shame or fear having impeded the children confiding to the parents, after they left the home in 2007. They were also not under the thumb of the accused, after they left the Home. The delay in reporting the crime cannot be brushed aside lightly.
23. We find no reason to differ from the trial
court insofar as the conclusion arrived at, of the allegations having been not proved beyond all reasonable doubt. We are fortified by the succinct statement of law Crl.A. (V) No.36 of 2019 - 25 - regarding consideration of acquittals, in appeals instituted; in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 1 SCC 166 :
2. Law is well settled. While caution is the
watchword, in appeal against acquittal as the trial Judge has occasion to watch demeanour of witnesses interference should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been arrived at; the provision does not inhibit (sic) any restriction or limitation. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of power shall be rendered meaningless. We find no perversity or misreading and cannot perceive any other conclusion other than that arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. We reject the appeal and confirm the acquittal ordered by the trial Court.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge Sd/- C.Jayachandran Judge jma/lgk/vku