Asked Her to Bring Rs.30 000/- from Her Parents. when She Vs. Shabnam ........Applicant-appellant - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1067575
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-14-2013
AppellantAsked Her to Bring Rs.30 000/- from Her Parents. when She
RespondentShabnam ........Applicant-appellant
Excerpt:
crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh ***** crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) date of decision :14. 3.2013 shabnam ........applicant-appellant versus state of haryana and others .......respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice jasbir singh hon'ble mr.justice inderjit singh present:- mr.gaurav jindal, advocate, for the applicant/appellant --- jasbir singh, j. crm no.10230 of 2013 after hearing counsel for the applicant, application is allowed. delay of 6 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) this application has been filed under section 378 (4) cr.p.c.seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 26.11.2012 acquitting respondents no.2 to 4 of the charges framed against them. it is necessary to mention here that vide the judgment mentioned above, co-accused of the above respondents, namely; firoz, was convicted for commission of offences under sections 498a and 506 ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -2- years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- with a default clause. the process of law was started on a complaint ex.p1 made by the applicant in the court of chief judicial magistrate, panipat, which was forwarded to the concerned police station, whereupon, fir no.738 dated 6.8.2010 was registered against the respondents-accused in police station city panipat, for commission of offences under sections 498a, 406, 506 and 376 ipc. the trial judge has noted the following facts from complaint made by the applicant/complainant :- “3. it was stated by complainant that marriage between her and accused firoz was solemnized according to muslim rites and ceremonies on 04.10.2009. her parents gave dowry more than their status. the accused no.1 is her husband, accused no.2 is her mother-in-law, accused no.3 is the husband of her sister-in-law and accused no.4 is her sister-in-law. however, the accused were not happy with the dowry brought by her. they used to taunt and tease her for bringing insufficient dowry. accused no.2 sadikan and accused no.4 seema demanded gold ear-rings (topus) whereas accused no.1 firoz and accused no.3 salim demanded gold chains. after about a month of the marriage, the accused asked him to bring the aforesaid jewellery from her parents, failing which they threatened not to keep her in matrimonial home. she came to her parental home at panipat and told her parents about the demand made by her in-laws. the accused no.1 and 3 were called by her parents. they admitted their guilt and undertook not to tease or taunt her for dowry. she again went to her matrimonial home. however, the accused did not change their behaviour. they again started demanding dowry. they crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -3- asked her to bring rs.30,000/- from her parents. when she refused, she was locked in a room. the accused also threatened to kill her. the accused also beat her. on the next morning, the accused sent her to her parental home. her parents called a panchayat. the accused remained adamant on their demand of rs.30,000/- for the purchase of a motorcycle. her father gave rs.20,000/- in cash to the accused. she again came to her matrimonial home. accused no.3 salim started keeping an evil eye upon her. the accused continued pressing her to bring dowry from her parents.”4. it was further stated by complainant that on 27.05.2010, after taking evening meals, she went to her room. accused salim asked her husband to bring a bottle of pepsi. he asked her to drink pepsi. the accused had put some poisonous substance in the bottle of pepsi. she became unconscious. accused no.3 salim committed rape upon her against her wishes. when she came to her senses, she told about the incident to her husband. the accused did not listen to her. rather they told her that they would not keep her in the house. they also threatened to kill her and to throw her dead body in a canal. she was so afraid that she did not disclose about the incident to any person. the atrocities of the accused persons against her increased. she made a phone call to her mother. she came to her matrimonial home. the accused blamed her. her mother advised the accused and she was allowed to live in her matrimonial home. however, the accused did not mend their behaviour. in the month of april 2010, she was given severe beatings and was turned out of her matrimonial home in three clothes. the accused also threatened to kill her if she came back without fulfilling their demand of dowry. again a panchayat was convened but the accused remained adamant. the accused refused to keep her in her matrimonial home. crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -4- they also refused to hand over the dowry articles. she, thus, prayed for taking action against the accused persons.” the investigating officer asi ranbir singh arrested the accused. the applicant was got medically examined on 9.9.2010. the investigating officer recorded statements of the witnesses and after completing other formalities, final report was put in court for trial. copies of the documents were supplied to the respondents-accused as per norms.case was committed to the competent court for trial vide order dated 8.4.2011. the respondents-accused were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. the prosecution produced 9 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. the trial judge on appraisal of evidence, convicted and sentenced firoz, whereas, respondents no.2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges framed against them. hence, this application. the trial judge noticed that no offence is made out under section 376 ipc so far as salim respondent is concerned. sufficient reasons, to say so, were given in paras no.14 and 15 of the judgment under challenge. it was also noted by the trial court that the applicant- prosecutrix had made many improvements in her statement, which she made in the firs.instance. to say, that no offence was committed under section 376 ipc, reference was also made to a report of the forensic science laboratory. when acquitting the respondents of the charges framed under crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -5- section 498a, 406, 506/34 ipc, it was noted that rashidhan alias sadikan is the mother-in-law, salim is the brother-in-law and seema is the married sister-in-law of the applicant-complainant. salim and seema were residents of a separate village. when giving benefit of doubt to them, the trial judge has observed as under :- “18. the accused have also been charged under sections 498a, 406 and 506 of indian penal code read with section 34 of indian penal code. accused firoz is the husband, accused rashidhan alias sadikan is the mother-in-law, accused salim is jija and accused seema is married sister-in-law of the prosecutrix. admittedly, accused salim and seema are permanent residents of village jalalabad, district saharanpur whereas accused firoz and rashidhan alias sadikan are permanent residents of kandhla, district muzaffarnagar (u.p.).the prosecutrix used to reside at her matrimonial home at kandhla when she was allegedly tortured and maltreated by the accused. the prosecutrix nowhere stated that she was ever assaulted, beaten or maltreated by accused salim and seema at jalalabad. even no specific allegation of demand of dowry or specific act of cruelty has been attributed by her to her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of her sister-in-law. only vague allegations regarding demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to her, have been made by her against the accused namely rashidhan alias sadikan, salim and seema. in the complaint ex.p1, she simply stated that the accused used to beat her. however, no such medical report has been placed or proved on file by the prosecution which may show that any injury was ever received by her on account of the alleged beatings given to her by the accused. even no specific date, month of year has been mentioned when she was allegedly given beatings by her mother-in-law, sister-in- crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -6- law and the husband of her sister-in-law. the allegations made by the prosecutrix against accused rashidhan alias sadikan and seema to the effect that they demanded gold ear- rings and against accused salim to the effect that he demanded a gold chain are itself vague. no such allegation was made by her in the panchayat. rather she stated that her husband started demanding ` 30,000/-for the purchase of a motor cycle. the allegations made by the prosecutrix with regard to the alleged demand of gold ear-rings and gold chain seems to be an afterthought, just to implicate as many members of the family of her husband as possible. it has become a tendency in matrimonial disputes to implicate all the family members.even sometimes remote relations, on vague allegations. the prosecutrix has also not given a specific instance when she was allegedly given beatings by accused rashidhan alias sadikan, salim and seema. rather the fact that accused salim and seema have been permanently residing at jalalabad itself shows that false allegations have been made by the prosecutrix against them regarding alleged demand of dowry and the cruelty meted out to her. so no offence under section 498a or 506 of indian penal code is proved to have been committed by any of the accused namely; rashidhan alias sadikan, saleem and seema.”19. the prosecutrix has also nowhere alleged as to which particular dowry article was entrusted to which of the accused persons. mere submission of list of the dowry articles by the prosecutrix would not prove the alleged entrustment of the dowry articles or its misappropriation by the accused. even from the statement made by pw8 anwari, the mother of the prosecutrix, no offence under section 406 of indian penal code is proved to have been committed by any of the accused persons. there is no such evidence on record which may crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -7- show that the accused rashidhan alias sadikan, saleem and seema shared common intention with co-accused firoz, the husband of the prosecutrix, to torture or maltreat the prosecutrix or to misappropriate the dowry/istridhan articles. even no offence under section 406 of indian penal code is proved to have been committed by accused firoz. only vague allegations have been made by the prosecutrix regarding alleged entrustment of dowry articles and its misappropriation by the accused persons facing trial.” at the time of the arguments, counsel for the applicant has failed to show any misreading of evidence by the trial court, which may necessitate interference by this court in the impugned judgment. 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.” crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -8- similarly, in state of 'goa v. sanjay thakran, (2007) 3 scc 755', 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 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 crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -9- 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. 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 applicant-appellant has failed to show any error in crm no.10230 of 2013 in/and crm-a no.82-ma of 2013 (o & m) -10- law on the basis of which interference can be made by this court in the judgment under challenge. accordingly, the application is dismissed. (jasbir singh) judge (inderjit singh) judge 14.3.2013 ashwani
Judgment:

CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) Date of decision :

14. 3.2013 Shabnam ........Applicant-appellant versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh Present:- Mr.Gaurav Jindal, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant --- Jasbir Singh, J.

CRM No.10230 of 2013 After hearing counsel for the applicant, application is allowed.

Delay of 6 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) This application has been filed under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C.seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment dated 26.11.2012 acquitting respondents No.2 to 4 of the charges framed against them.

It is necessary to mention here that vide the judgment mentioned above, co-accused of the above respondents, namely; Firoz, was convicted for commission of offences under Sections 498A and 506 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -2- years and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- with a default clause.

The process of law was started on a complaint Ex.P1 made by the applicant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat, which was forwarded to the concerned police station, whereupon, FIR No.738 dated 6.8.2010 was registered against the respondents-accused in Police Station City Panipat, for commission of offences under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 376 IPC.

The trial Judge has noted the following facts from complaint made by the applicant/complainant :- “3.

It was stated by complainant that marriage between her and accused Firoz was solemnized according to Muslim rites and ceremonies on 04.10.2009.

Her parents gave dowry more than their status.

The accused No.1 is her husband, accused No.2 is her mother-in-law, accused No.3 is the husband of her sister-in-law and accused No.4 is her sister-in-law.

However, the accused were not happy with the dowry brought by her.

They used to taunt and tease her for bringing insufficient dowry.

Accused No.2 Sadikan and accused No.4 Seema demanded gold ear-rings (topus) whereas accused No.1 Firoz and accused No.3 Salim demanded gold chains.

After about a month of the marriage, the accused asked him to bring the aforesaid jewellery from her parents, failing which they threatened not to keep her in matrimonial home.

She came to her parental home at Panipat and told her parents about the demand made by her in-laws.

The accused No.1 and 3 were called by her parents.

They admitted their guilt and undertook not to tease or taunt her for dowry.

She again went to her matrimonial home.

However, the accused did not change their behaviour.

They again started demanding dowry.

They CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -3- asked her to bring Rs.30,000/- from her parents.

When she refused, she was locked in a room.

The accused also threatened to kill her.

The accused also beat her.

On the next morning, the accused sent her to her parental home.

Her parents called a Panchayat.

The accused remained adamant on their demand of Rs.30,000/- for the purchase of a motorcycle.

Her father gave Rs.20,000/- in cash to the accused.

She again came to her matrimonial home.

Accused No.3 Salim started keeping an evil eye upon her.

The accused continued pressing her to bring dowry from her parents.”

4. It was further stated by complainant that on 27.05.2010, after taking evening meals, she went to her room.

Accused Salim asked her husband to bring a bottle of Pepsi.

He asked her to drink Pepsi.

The accused had put some poisonous substance in the bottle of Pepsi.

She became unconscious.

Accused No.3 Salim committed rape upon her against her wishes.

When she came to her senses, she told about the incident to her husband.

The accused did not listen to her.

Rather they told her that they would not keep her in the house.

They also threatened to kill her and to throw her dead body in a canal.

She was so afraid that she did not disclose about the incident to any person.

The atrocities of the accused persons against her increased.

She made a phone call to her mother.

She came to her matrimonial home.

The accused blamed her.

Her mother advised the accused and she was allowed to live in her matrimonial home.

However, the accused did not mend their behaviour.

In the month of April 2010, she was given severe beatings and was turned out of her matrimonial home in three clothes.

The accused also threatened to kill her if she came back without fulfilling their demand of dowry.

Again a Panchayat was convened but the accused remained adamant.

The accused refused to keep her in her matrimonial home.

CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -4- They also refused to hand over the dowry articles.

She, thus, prayed for taking action against the accused persons.”

The Investigating Officer ASI Ranbir Singh arrested the accused.

The applicant was got medically examined on 9.9.2010.

The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses and after completing other formalities, final report was put in Court for trial.

Copies of the documents were supplied to the respondents-accused as per norMs.Case was committed to the competent Court for trial vide order dated 8.4.2011.

The respondents-accused were charge sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution produced 9 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case.

The trial Judge on appraisal of evidence, convicted and sentenced Firoz, whereas, respondents No.2 to 4 were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Hence, this application.

The trial Judge noticed that no offence is made out under Section 376 IPC so far as Salim respondent is concerned.

Sufficient reasons, to say so, were given in Paras No.14 and 15 of the judgment under challenge.

It was also noted by the trial Court that the applicant- prosecutrix had made many improvements in her statement, which she made in the fiRs.instance.

To say, that no offence was committed under Section 376 IPC, reference was also made to a report of the Forensic Science Laboratory.

When acquitting the respondents of the charges framed under CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -5- Section 498A, 406, 506/34 IPC, it was noted that Rashidhan alias Sadikan is the mother-in-law, Salim is the brother-in-law and Seema is the married sister-in-law of the applicant-complainant.

Salim and Seema were residents of a separate village.

When giving benefit of doubt to them, the trial Judge has observed as under :- “18.

The accused have also been charged under Sections 498A, 406 and 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of Indian penal Code.

Accused Firoz is the husband, accused Rashidhan alias Sadikan is the mother-in-law, accused Salim is Jija and accused Seema is married sister-in-law of the prosecutrix.

Admittedly, accused Salim and Seema are permanent residents of Village Jalalabad, District Saharanpur whereas accused Firoz and Rashidhan alias Sadikan are permanent residents of Kandhla, District Muzaffarnagar (U.P.).The prosecutrix used to reside at her matrimonial home at Kandhla when she was allegedly tortured and maltreated by the accused.

The prosecutrix nowhere stated that she was ever assaulted, beaten or maltreated by accused Salim and Seema at Jalalabad.

Even no specific allegation of demand of dowry or specific act of cruelty has been attributed by her to her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband of her sister-in-law.

Only vague allegations regarding demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to her, have been made by her against the accused namely Rashidhan alias Sadikan, Salim and Seema.

In the complaint Ex.P1, she simply stated that the accused used to beat her.

However, no such medical report has been placed or proved on file by the prosecution which may show that any injury was ever received by her on account of the alleged beatings given to her by the accused.

Even no specific date, month of year has been mentioned when she was allegedly given beatings by her mother-in-law, sister-in- CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -6- law and the husband of her sister-in-law.

The allegations made by the prosecutrix against accused Rashidhan alias Sadikan and Seema to the effect that they demanded gold ear- rings and against accused Salim to the effect that he demanded a gold chain are itself vague.

No such allegation was made by her in the Panchayat.

Rather she stated that her husband started demanding ` 30,000/-for the purchase of a motor cycle.

The allegations made by the prosecutrix with regard to the alleged demand of gold ear-rings and gold chain seems to be an afterthought, just to implicate as many members of the family of her husband as possible.

It has become a tendency in matrimonial disputes to implicate all the family membeRs.even sometimes remote relations, on vague allegations.

The prosecutrix has also not given a specific instance when she was allegedly given beatings by accused Rashidhan alias Sadikan, Salim and Seema.

Rather the fact that accused Salim and Seema have been permanently residing at Jalalabad itself shows that false allegations have been made by the prosecutrix against them regarding alleged demand of dowry and the cruelty meted out to her.

So no offence under Section 498A or 506 of Indian Penal Code is proved to have been committed by any of the accused namely; Rashidhan alias Sadikan, Saleem and Seema.”

19. The prosecutrix has also nowhere alleged as to which particular dowry article was entrusted to which of the accused persons.

Mere submission of list of the dowry articles by the prosecutrix would not prove the alleged entrustment of the dowry articles or its misappropriation by the accused.

Even from the statement made by PW8 Anwari, the mother of the prosecutrix, no offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is proved to have been committed by any of the accused persons.

There is no such evidence on record which may CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -7- show that the accused Rashidhan alias Sadikan, Saleem and Seema shared common intention with co-accused Firoz, the husband of the prosecutrix, to torture or maltreat the prosecutrix or to misappropriate the dowry/Istridhan articles.

Even no offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code is proved to have been committed by accused Firoz.

Only vague allegations have been made by the prosecutrix regarding alleged entrustment of dowry articles and its misappropriation by the accused persons facing trial.”

At the time of the arguments, counsel for the applicant has failed to show any misreading of evidence by the trial Court, which may necessitate interference by this Court in the impugned judgment.

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.”

CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -8- Similarly, in State of 'Goa v.

Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755', 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 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 CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -9- 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.

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 applicant-appellant has failed to show any error in CRM No.10230 of 2013 in/and CRM-A No.82-MA of 2013 (O & M) -10- law on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.

Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

(Jasbir Singh) Judge (Inderjit Singh) Judge 14.3.2013 Ashwani