Suraj Ghising Lama Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 3 &4: [dalveer bhandari & dr.b.s.chauhan,jj] dowry death acquittal of accused by trial court appeal - high court while reversing the judgment of the trial court observed that in all probabilities, i am inclined to hold that there was demand of dowry and the deceased was harassed by the first accused and therefore, she committed suicide. view of trial court on careful marshalling of entire evidence was possible and plausible view and not found per-verse held, in a case of suicide by wife allegedly on account of demand of dowry and harassment, the view taken by the trial court in acquitting accused husband and father-in-law on careful marshalling of entire evidence and documents on record, is a possible and plausible view. the decision of the trial court cannot be termed as perverse. in criminal cases the conviction can be sustained only when there is clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt. the accused cannot be convicted on the ground that in all probabilities the accused may have committed the crime. the approach of the high court is wholly fallacious and unsustainable in law. the high court ought not to have substituted the view of trial court by its own possible view.indian penal code, 1890.sections 304-b & 498-a: dowry death acquittal of accused by trial court appeal - high court while reversing the judgment of the trial court observed that in all probabilities, i am inclined to hold that there was demand of dowry and the deceased was harassed by the first accused and therefore, she committed suicide. view of trial court on careful marshalling of entire evidence was possible and plausible view and not found per-verse held, in a case of suicide by wife allegedly on account of demand of dowry and harassment, the view taken by the trial court in acquitting accused husband and father-in-law on careful marshalling of entire evidence and documents on record, is a possible and plausible view. the decision of the trial court cannot be termed as perverse. in criminal cases the conviction can be sustained only when there is clear evidence beyond reasonable doubt. the accused cannot be convicted on the ground that in all probabilities the accused may have committed the crime. the approach of the high court is wholly fallacious and unsustainable in law. the high court ought not to have substituted the view of trial court by its own possible view. - 4. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is better in the interest of justice that the case be transferred out of arunachal pradesh.order1. leave granted.2. the appellant is an accused in a criminal case charged against him and the case is now stated to be pending before the additional sessions judge, yupia in arunachal pradesh. respondent no. 2 herein, who is the 4th respondent before the high court and who the de facto complainant, is an additional sessions judge working at the fast track court in panumpare, arunachal pradesh. the appellant alleges that there are only three sessions judges in arunachal pradesh and the appellant is not likely to get justice if the trial continues in any one of the sessions courts in arunachal pradesh and prays that the case may be transferred out of arunachal pradesh.3. heard both sides.4. having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is better in the interest of justice that the case be transferred out of arunachal pradesh. we also make it clear that merely because the case is directed to be transferred, we do not assume that 2nd respondent tried to influence or misused here office in the pending matter. the case is thus directed to be transferred to sessions court, north lakhimpur, assam. the additional sessions judge, yupia, arunachal pradesh is requested to send all records pertaining to c.r. case no. 03 of 2007 to the sessions court, north lakhimpur, assam and the state of assam shall make all arrangements to conduct the prosecution of the case in the sessions court.5. appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is an accused in a criminal case charged against him and the case is now stated to be pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Yupia in Arunachal Pradesh. Respondent No. 2 herein, who is the 4th respondent before the High Court and who the de facto complainant, is an Additional Sessions Judge working at the Fast Track Court in Panumpare, Arunachal Pradesh. The appellant alleges that there are only three Sessions Judges in Arunachal Pradesh and the appellant is not likely to get justice if the trial continues in any one of the Sessions Courts in Arunachal Pradesh and prays that the case may be transferred out of Arunachal Pradesh.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it is better in the interest of justice that the case be transferred out of Arunachal Pradesh. We also make it clear that merely because the case is directed to be transferred, we do not assume that 2nd respondent tried to influence or misused here office in the pending matter. The case is thus directed to be transferred to Sessions Court, North Lakhimpur, Assam. The Additional Sessions Judge, Yupia, Arunachal Pradesh is requested to send all records pertaining to C.R. Case No. 03 of 2007 to the Sessions Court, North Lakhimpur, Assam and the State of Assam shall make all arrangements to conduct the prosecution of the case in the Sessions Court.

5. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.