2023 (7) TMI 1421 - HC - Indian Laws

Leave to appeal - Acquittal of accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC - no direct evidence against any of the accused as the complainant and other eye witnesses turned hostile regarding the identity of the accused as culprits - HELD THAT - It is accepted proposition of criminal jurisprudence that this Court has the power to unsettle the order of acquittal on the basis of re-appreciation of the evidence but the power is subject to the settled law that where two views are possible and out of the two, one points towards the innocence of the accused, the view which favour the accused should prevail over the other pointing towards the guilt of the accused. There is no direct evidence against any of the respondents. The star witness of the prosecution i.e. PW-3-Anil (the injured) and the other eye witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. Moreover, there is no charge against the respondents under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and the alleged weapon of offence recovered from respondent No.3-Rahul was infact recovered during the investigation of FIR No.496 of 2017 registered at Police Station Ganaur and he is acquitted in the abovesaid FIR by learned JMIC, Ganaur vide judgment dated 01.10.2018 - Also, there is no evidence as to how and when the weapons recovered in other FIR were taken into possession in this FIR and further sent to FSL for comparison, in the absence of the link evidence the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. The view taken by the learned trial Court is reasonable and logical. There is no perversity in the finding of acquittal. In view of the fact that presumption of innocence of accused further gets entrenched and fortified on his acquittal by the trial Court, there are no ground to interfere in the findings of the learned trial Court. As such, there is no merit in the present application and the leave to appeal is declined. Main appeal also dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of leave to appeal against acquittal.
2. Examination of direct evidence and witness credibility.
3. Recovery and admissibility of weapons and forensic evidence.
4. Scope and ambit of appellate court's power in reversing acquittal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal:
The application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 04.12.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, which acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 307, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal and that leave to appeal should only be granted if there are substantial and compelling reasons.

2. Examination of Direct Evidence and Witness Credibility:
The prosecution's case was based on the statement of the injured (PW-3) and other eyewitnesses who later turned hostile, failing to identify the accused. The trial court found no direct evidence against the accused, leading to their acquittal. The High Court reiterated that the credibility of witnesses as assessed by the trial judge holds significant weight and that the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the trial court's acquittal.

3. Recovery and Admissibility of Weapons and Forensic Evidence:
The State counsel argued that the weapon recovered from respondent No.3-Rahul matched the bullets found at the crime scene, as corroborated by the FSL report. However, the court noted discrepancies in the chain of custody and the lack of charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The weapon was recovered during a different FIR, and the accused was acquitted in that case. The absence of link evidence regarding the recovery and comparison of weapons undermined the prosecution's case.

4. Scope and Ambit of Appellate Court's Power in Reversing Acquittal:
The court examined the principles guiding appellate review of acquittal, emphasizing that an appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's judgment is perverse. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, highlighting that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should prevail. The High Court found no perversity in the trial court's findings, which were based on the lack of direct evidence and the hostile witnesses.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the trial court's view was reasonable and logical, with no perversity in its findings. The presumption of innocence further entrenched by the trial court's acquittal led the High Court to dismiss the application for leave to appeal, thereby also dismissing the main appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of credible evidence and the high threshold for reversing acquittal in criminal jurisprudence.