9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tall of the deceased armed with Dharia. He inflicted four blows to the deceased with that Dharia, as a result of which deceased Abdul Karim Ali Mohamed sustained serious injuries on head and other portions of his body. He was shifted to the Hospital but he succumbed to the injuries. At about 7.45 p.m. a message was received at Police Station Bhachau from the Medical Hospital stating that Abdul Karim Ali Mohamed who has been brought to the Hospital had sustained serious injuries and was being shifted to Bhuj Civil Hospital. The intimation was recorded as Crime Entry No. 20 of 1989 in the Police Station diary. Thereafter the statement of Ali Mohmed was recorded in the police station and the FIR registered which was marked as Exhibit 30. Or competition of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Ali Mohdmed Husein (PW4), complainant, Rajesh Velji (PW5), Shashikant (PW6) and Mamudo @ Abdulla (PW9) were cited eye-witnesses. As Rajesh Velji (PW5) did not fully support the case of the prosecution, he was declared hostile. The trial court discarded the testimony of the eye-witnesses and acquitted the accused. It appears t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on the main story of the prosecution that it was none else but only A-1 Allarakha who did commit murder of deceased Abdul Karim by giving him successive blows with dhaia in a public place near the tea stall of the deceased and that too for a motive for pecuniary gain. The trial court has committed also serious error in giving benefit of doubt to the appellant A-1 Allarakha. We may mention at this stage that benefit of doubt if any arising from the record of the case on the main story of the prosecution which is reasonable and just in the circumstances could be given to the accused which is one of the fundamental principle of Criminal Jurisprudence. However, it must be strictly noted that the benefit of doubt should be a reasonable average person and not of a person who is afraid of legal consequences. Before we conclude, we should also like to highlight one more important aspect which also significantly corroborates and supports the prosecution case and the evidence of 3 eye witnesses and it is the recovery of Muddamal article No. 9 dharia from A-1. We have found while examining the impugned judgment that the trial court has made certain observations and has raised certain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not interfere with an order of acquittal because with the passing of an order of acquittal the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced. The High Court should be slow in disturbing the finding of the fact arrived at by the trial court. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In our country it is not a jurisdictional limitation on the appeal court but a judge made guideline of circumspection. In Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra 1973CriLJ1783 this Court held: This Court had ever since its inception considered the correct principle to be applied by the Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal and held that the High Court has full powers to review at larger the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. The Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, negatived the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng reasons' but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable. 7. The paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where the trial court has taken a view based upon conjectures and hypothesis and not on the legal evidence, a duty is cast upon the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. Probable view taken by the trial court which may not be disturbed in the appeal is such a view which is based upon legal and admissible evidence. Only because the accused has been acquitted by the t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
