2021 (1) TMI 1320 - HC - Indian Laws

Criminal breach of trust - criminal breach of trust by carrier - forgery for purpose of cheating - fraudulent cancellation, destruction etc., of will, authority to adopt or valuable security - falsification of accounts - presumption of innocence in favour of respondents or not - acquittal of accused - HELD THAT - There are nothing palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable in the impugned judgment. From the evidence available on record, there is nothing to substantiate the charge levelled against accused. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption in favour of accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to accused 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, accused having secured acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. For acquitting accused, the Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case. The opinion of the Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of acquittal cannot be interfered with - there are no fault with the judgment of the Trial Court - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against acquittal under various sections of the Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 407, 468, 477, and 477A for criminal breach of trust, forgery, fraudulent cancellation, and falsification of accounts.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations and Charges:
The appeal challenged an order acquitting the accused of misappropriating a significant amount while working as a DOLD Operator for Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The accused was alleged to have made false entries in the computer, showing goods worth a substantial sum as sold to specific parties, committing forgery and tampering with evidence.

2. Evidence and Witnesses:
The prosecution presented 11 witnesses, including IOCL employees, a bank employee, the complainant who lodged the FIR, and investigating officers. However, the reliability of some witnesses was questioned, with inconsistencies and lack of concrete evidence noted in their testimonies.

3. Admissibility of Evidence:
The Court highlighted issues with the admissibility of crucial evidence, particularly Daily Collection Reports (DCRs) and the lack of original documents. The absence of the computer hard disk, which contained vital data, raised doubts about the prosecution's case.

4. Legal Principles and Precedents:
The judgment referred to legal principles outlined by the Supreme Court regarding the appellate court's role in appeals against acquittals. The burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and the need for substantial reasons to overturn a trial court's decision were emphasized.

5. Trial Court's Decision and Acquittal:
The Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused was upheld, citing the lack of concrete evidence to establish criminal breach of trust or forgery. The Court found no palpable errors or manifestly unsustainable aspects in the Trial Court's judgment to warrant interference.

6. Double Presumption in Favor of Accused:
The judgment reiterated the double presumption in favor of the accused post-acquittal, emphasizing the fundamental principle of innocence until proven guilty. The Trial Court's observation of the prosecution's failure to prove its case further reinforced the accused's innocence.

7. Dismissal of Appeal and Revision Application:
The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's acquittal decision. Consequently, the criminal revision application also stood disposed of, and bail bonds were ordered to be discharged.

In conclusion, the judgment meticulously analyzed the evidence, legal principles, and precedents to affirm the Trial Court's acquittal decision, emphasizing the need for substantial reasons to overturn such judgments in appeals against acquittals.