Full Judgment
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant.
2. This leave to appeal has been preferred against impugned judgment and order dated 10th September, 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Karauli in sessions case No.9/2008, whereby trial court, while convicting the accused respondents under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, acquitted the accused respondents of the charges under Sections 307 and 353 IPC.
3. Learned public prosecutor submitted that this is a case of gun shot fire by accused persons on the person of police officials, therefore, trial court committed an illegality in acquitting the accused respondents of the charges under Sections 307 and 353 IPC.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for appellant in the light of reasons assigned by the trial court for acquittal of accused respondents. Learned trial court has observed that there was only one eye witness PW.18 Sheobhag Keer in the present case, who was declared hostile. There was no other eye witness to the incident. Learned trial court also observed that no injury whatsoever nature was sustained by any police official, therefore, accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt.
5. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by learned public prosecutor and she frankly admitted that there was no other eye witness in the case except PW.18, who was declared hostile and none sustained any injury whatsoever.
6. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bacchudas alias Balaram & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 1236) observed that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that the order of acquittal should not be interferred with unless there are some compelling and substantial reason or circumstances for doing so. Para 9 of the judgment(supra) is reproduced as under:
“9. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of injustice which may arise from acquittal of the guilt is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offences or not.
The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there is compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharahstra(1973(2)SCC 793); Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat(1996(9)SCC 225); Jaswant v. State of Harayana(2000(4)SCC 484); Rajkishore Jha v. State of Bihar(2003(11)SCC 519); State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh(2003(11)SCC 271); State of Punjab v. Phola Singh(2003(11)SCC 58); Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal(2003(11)SCC 527) and Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P.(2004(11)SCC 410.”
8. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this leave to appeal and the same is, accordingly, rejected.