2022 (3) TMI 1548 - HC - Indian Laws

Order of Acquittal - abusing the complainant by uttering obscene words in public relating to the mother and Sister of the complainant and also to his wife and minor son - presumption of innocence - acquittal of accused - offence punishable under sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 - HELD THAT - It is well settled by is catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full Power to review, re-appreciate and consider the Evidence upon which the Order of Acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of Acquittal, there is prejudice 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 reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. On re-appreciation of evidence, it is clear that the there was quarrel of the minor son with Dhanji and at the time of quarrel no witness was present as per the case of the complainant, when the complainant' wife Sonalben had gone to scold, the accused insulted against her caste. However, the wife of the complainant has not lodged any complaint. The complaint is filed on the next day. There is no reasonable explanation for lodging the complaint belatedly. The delay is not explained in the complaint or in the evidence, prima facie it appears that the complaint itself is suspicious. Further though the incident had happened in the public state, other independent witness is not examined. In absence of corroboration to the witnesses, the complainant's complaint is doubtful. The prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and trial court has not committed any error or illegality in acquitting the accused. The Criminal Appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the acquittal judgment by the trial court.
2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility.
3. Delay in lodging the complaint.
4. Applicability of legal principles in acquittal appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the acquittal judgment by the trial court:
The appeal was filed under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenging the acquittal of the accused by the Additional Sessions Judge and 3rd Fast Track Court, Diodar. The accused were acquitted of charges under Sections 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and upheld the trial court's judgment, noting that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Evaluation of evidence and witness credibility:
- Quarrel and Absence of Witnesses: The court noted that the complainant's wife did not lodge a complaint immediately after the incident. The delay in filing the complaint was unexplained, making the complaint suspicious. The absence of independent witnesses further weakened the prosecution's case.
- Panch Witness: The panch witness admitted that the panchnama was prepared at the complainant's house, not at the scene of the incident, making the panchnama unreliable.
- Complainant's Testimony: The complainant was not present during the incident and filed the complaint based on his wife's account. The court found the addition of the words "sale kandao" in the complaint suspicious and indicative of a false complaint.
- Wife's Testimony: The complainant's wife provided inconsistent statements during cross-examination, failing to mention key details in her initial complaint.
- Mother's Testimony: The complainant's mother, who claimed to be an eyewitness, provided contradictory statements, making her testimony unreliable.
- Minor Son's Testimony: The minor son's testimony did not support the prosecution's claim that the accused used caste-based insults. His statements were inconsistent with other witnesses.
- Investigating Officer's Testimony: The investigating officer admitted that no independent witnesses were recorded, and the delay in lodging the FIR was unexplained, casting doubt on the investigation's credibility.

3. Delay in lodging the complaint:
The delay in filing the complaint was not explained by the complainant or in the evidence. This unexplained delay created a serious doubt about the occurrence of the incident, leading the court to view the complaint as suspicious.

4. Applicability of legal principles in acquittal appeals:
The court reiterated the principles governing appeals against acquittal:
- Presumption of Innocence: The appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence available to the accused, which is further strengthened by the trial court's acquittal.
- Two Views Principle: If two views are possible, the view favoring the accused should be adopted. The appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's judgment unless it is perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.
- Credibility of Witnesses: The trial court's assessment of witness credibility should be given proper weight, as it is in a better position to appreciate their testimony.

The High Court referenced several Supreme Court judgments to support these principles, emphasizing the importance of ensuring no wrongful conviction of an innocent person.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the prosecution's case. The trial court's judgment of acquittal was upheld, as the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented was inconsistent and unreliable. The principles governing acquittal appeals were duly considered, and the appellate court found no special reasons to interfere with the trial court's decision.