9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr.Manish Dadwal, AAG, Haryana for the appellant. HARPREET SINGH BR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the accused as the complainant and other eye witnesses turned hostile regarding the identity of the accused as culprits. Thus, the present leave to appeal is filed. CONTENTIONS 6. Learned State counsel has argued that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicates that all the three respondents had fired upon PW-3-Anil with an intention to kill him and one shot injured his right foot. PW-16-Dr. Chiranjeev duly proved on the basis of X-Ray report that PW-3-Anil had suffered a fracture of right foot medial cuneiform bone. He also produced an X-Ray film as Ex-PW-16/B. All the three respondents were arrested and respondent No.3-Rahul suffered a disclosure statement which is duly produced on record as Ex-PW-19/A and the weapon of offence has already been recovered from respondent No.3-Rahul. Similarly, the arrest of other respondents is proved by other official witnesses alongwith their disclosure statements. The learned State counsel further contends that the bullet injury suffered by PW-3-Anil on 08.09.2017 was clearly proved from the testimony of PW-23-Mohd.Bilal who found entry and exit wound on the right foot of PW-3-Anil and had also found blackening of margin, thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this however is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice. b) A three Judge Bench of Hon ble Supreme Court in Atley v. State of U.P., 1955 AIR (Supreme Court) 807, speaking through Justice B.P. Sinha, held as under: 5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of the trial court being one of acquittal, the High Court should not have set it aside on a mere appreciation of the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution unless it came to the conclusion that the judgment of the trial judge was perverse. In our opinion, it is not correct to say that unless the appellate court in an appeal under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code came to the conclusion that the judgment of acquittal under appeal was perverse it could not set aside that order. It has been laid down by this Court that it is open to the High Court on an appeal against an order of acquittal to review the entire evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew which has been taken by the trial court was a possible or a plausible view. 24. We have carefully perused the judgment of the trial court and the impugned judgment of the High Court. The trial court very minutely examined the entire evidence and all documents and exhibits on record. The trial court's analysis of evidence also seems to be correct. The trial court has not deviated from the normal norms or methods of evaluation of the evidence. By no stretch of imagination, we can hold that the judgment of the trial court is based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it and consequently the judgment of the trial court is perverse. 25. We also fail to arrive at the conclusion that the discussion and appreciation of the evidence of the trial court is so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse and the findings rendered by the trial court are against the weight of evidence. The law is well settled that, in an appeal against acquittal, unless the judgment of the trial court is perverse, the Appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its own vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or wayward; stubborn; cross or petulant. 5. Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words Phrases, Fourth Edition PERVERSE : A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. 33. In Shailendra Pratap Another v. State of U.P., (2003)1 SCC 761, the Court observed thus : We are of the opinion that the trial court was quite justified in acquitting the appellants of the charges as the view taken by it was reasonable one and the order of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse. It is well settled that appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the order of acquittal unless the same is found to be perverse. In the present case, the High Court has committed an error in interfering with the order of acquittal of the appellants recorded by the trial court as the same did not suffer from the vice of perversity. 34. In Kuldeep Singh v. The Commissioner of Police Others, 1999(1) SCT 303 : (1999)2 SCC 10, the Court while dealing with the scope of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution observed as under : 9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal against an order of acquittal. Speaking through Justice C.K. Thakker, the following was held: 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lled to face proceedings in the High Court in an appeal, the High Court should look into the matter and first decide whether there are sufficient reasons to grant leave to file appeal or not. This is, in a manner of speaking a preliminary hearing to decide whether the matter is worth looking into or not. I see no reason why such scrutiny should not be done in appeals filed by the victim. The victim cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than the State or the complainant. 9. After examining the record of the case, we find that 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. None of the Register No.19 of the alleged weapons recovered from respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
