Sikander Singh v. Balwinder Singh & ORS
!"
# $%&%!'(
)
*+ *
, -&.&
/0 * *
( 1/ ) *
22222
22222
) !"# $%& '
(
) *+
%,&! $%&
.( /%$/$%&
- * 0 0 -+
1
( 2 +
%#$!$$, - $&$$ 3
- 2
(
- $ 3(
-
(
(
3
3 3 .
- 2
+
-+
(+
(
((
/,4//4,$&
/# 5 %%$%$% 5
3
6 % 6
2)
2
6 6 / * 7
6 #
( 8(
%,$!$$,
(
*
6 #
( 8(
. 2
%#$!$$, 9 :8 6 #4 ( :8 6 #42 ; + :8 6 #4 < )
8(
)
( )
8
(
// 5 )
-
( $/$/$%&
+
$=$/$%&
( )
8
5
)
8 ( 8
8( >) 6 % 3
. 2
8(
( )
: (
)
(
(
/%/
/%/
+
+
+ (
3 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent vide judgment dated 31.03.2016.
Hence the present leave to appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on the record and the acquittal is based on conjectures and surmises. He submits that the appellant has been duly supported by medical evidence in the shape of testimony of witnesses, however, the learned trial Court has discarded the well proved and unrebutted evidence of the appellant. He further contends that trial Court has miserably failed to consider the fact that no defence evidence has been led by the respondents in their support.
Heard.
In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and others vs. State of Maharashtra 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 57 the Apex Court framed the guidelines for the appellate court to deal with the matter of "appeal against acquittal", which are as under:- "Appeal against Acquittal:
22. It is a well-established principle of law, consistently reiterated and followed by this Court is that while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, an appellate court must consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. Even though the appellate court is entitled to consider, whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court
4 had placed the burden of proof incorrectly or failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law; the appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. The trial court which has the benefit of watching the demeanor of the witnesses is the best judge of the credibility of the witnesses.
23. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be taken into consideration. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused, and further, that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference with the decision of the Trial Court in a casual or cavalier manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for such interference.
24. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is 'against the weight of evidence', or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See: Balak Ram & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2165; Shailendra Pratap & Anr. v. State of U.P.,
AIR 2003 SC 1104; Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2500; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs. & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulvelu & Anr. v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206; Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 445); and Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189)."
5
1
3
(
( 6% 3
6/ 2
'
6 2)
8(
<
(
>
( ( -
(
(
(
< - (
- (
.
-
( 8(
( .
'5
(
1+ $,$"$$,
)
( 1 )
(
) +
$!$=$%!
( // 5 + In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the well reasoned judgment of learned trial Court, which calls for interference, as such the present application for seeking leave to appeal is dismissed being bereft of merit.
$ 56 -