Daljinder Singh v. Jai Bhagwan And ANR
! "
"
" $"% &
' "( )* +, -
.&& !,+/ )
, - &0
) & 1 2!31
*" 4 &
!"
$
"
#$ $
%%%%% " 4 5 !
$
& $
'" ( #( $
$
"
#$ $ , - .&)$ / )
$ 0 1
) $ 1
"* 3 $( -" ( & /"(
( $& (
#$ $ , - .&)$ / $
4"& $ 5
$ 1
#
$
&
& " ₹ # $ $
$
$ #+
2 6 )
"( $
7)
#$ $ " , - .&)$ / (() $( $ -"& (
4"& $ 2 8 & $ )
$
1 $ $ "$
$
#( $$ $
'"(
$& # .
$
/
$ $ +"
(( & # (( 3 $& 97:
&
( $
$
&
&
+
;
7 +$
" #"*( $&
)
'" $ '"(
"
#
$
$&
$ + )
$
)
"
)
$
#( $ & $ 9#
$
#$ $:
$ ;20 0 058 08 2 5 2 . ;0 1 ) $
) $
!
) ) $
#" $
$
+
#"*(
)
)##
< !" #= "##( $ <$% #& $&
$
'"
$ '"(
#$&
1 $ $ ) ((
$ 4"& $
$ $
* $
## ((
) " $& $ $
$
"
$
" $
$
+
#"&$ 4"& $ #
## ((
; >#$ $
#$ $
$
"& "$ $
$
?
"$ "* ## ((
&
#
&(+ '"
#$ $
?
"$
"
$ $ #
$
& $ '" ( '"
(
'" ( "#
"# $
$$
"
"
@
"* $ +
(
$ 0
$
"* $
*
$
"
2 @ (
$&
( $( $ -"&
$&
"
#
"* $
*
*
'
(# # ") *# ## $%$ $ +# +,- # *$ .% /%,$ (#% -#$ * 0 %1 ($% 0--' ( +# $ +# "#% * !" # # 23' 4'5'' 6$ # # $%$ $% +# 7 * *$ .% /%,$ (#% -#$ * 0
%1 ($% 0-- 8* % *- $%$ % +# $ 7 * *$ ' .% /%,$ (#% 9 %- * - $ * 7 * *$# "
$- 7 * *$'
'
6$ # $:# # $%$ "
)$ $%# +# $ # * %# + * %# #$- * $#% * %# - - # * * # $ * $% - ' ;
) $%# $1 % %# 3 * $+
## "
#* # %# + * %# ' < %# 3$% #$$ * $%$ %#
+# !* /-%' /1 $ # ) * $ $ "
) % +% % * # $ ,+ %#
) 1 $ $ "
"
) * $%$ %#
$$ +# + * %#
# "
# $%# +# $ '
< +* /-% #$$ * $%$
$$ $ +# $$ %#
#' # + # #$$ * $%$ $%# +# $ +# "#% * * $ ) - ' . $ "
- % #$$ $ $ %# $ "
,
$ * $%$ 41 #% %* * $1 23' -#$
$ # *' ;%# $ +# *### * )* ! *- $ 23'
= $%
> * % +# 7 $$ *'
' 6 % $ #% %* ) * -$# -#$
$ # * $%$ % $ * $ $- % * #$ ' 6$ # # - * "
% $%$ $ #
$ # * "
%* % $# 1 # % *
#$ $ "
* +$% $ $ # # ' / #
$ #$$ $ * "
$'
>' ;% # #
$ # *
# * %* ) * $$ 23'
<?( * % +* * $% # $ $%$ +#
2*$ * $ +# "#% *' ; $ %# *### * %# $ -#$ % 2*$ * @$ 2*$' 6 $% "# $%# $ $ "
$ * -#$ % ' * $ $ "
"#% * "#% * *$ %*
$;
# * $ $ $ $1 $ + * $ %) "
"#% *'& 5 1$
7$B*(
"#
"
#
& $
'" (
1 (
AScope of Appeal filed against the Acquittal:
25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 of the Cr. PC, the Appellate Court has to consider whether the Trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyzed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the Appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the Trial Court rendering acquittal.
Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters. Precedents: B Mohan @Srinivas @Seena @Tailor Seena v. State of Karnataka, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1233] as hereunder: - "20. Section 378 CrPC enables the State to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal. Section 384 CrPC speaks of the powers that can be exercised by the Appellate Court. When the trial court renders its decision by acquitting the accused, presumption of innocence gathers strength before the Appellate Court. As a consequence, the onus on the prosecution becomes more burdensome as there is a double presumption of innocence. Certainly, the Court of first instance has its own advantages in delivering its verdict, which is to see the witnesses in person while they depose. The Appellate Court is expected to involve itself in a deeper, studied
$0
scrutiny of not only the evidence before it, but is duty bound to satisfy itself whether the decision of the trial court is both possible and plausible view. When two views are possible, the one taken by the trial court in a case of acquittal is to be followed on the touchstone of liberty along with the advantage of having seen the witnesses. Article 21 of the Constitution of India also aids the accused after acquittal in a certain way, though not absolute. Suffice it is to state that the Appellate Court shall remind itself of the role required to play, while dealing with a case of an acquittal.
21. Every case has its own journey towards the truth and it is the Court's role undertake. Truth has to be found on the basis of evidence available before it. There is no room for subjectivity nor the nature of offence affects its performance. We have a hierarchy of courts in dealing with cases. An Appellate Court shall not expect the trial court to act in a particular way depending upon the sensitivity of the case. Rather it should be appreciated if a trial court decides a case on its own merit despite its sensitivity.
22. At times, courts do have their constraints. We find, different decisions being made by different courts, namely, trial court on the one hand and the Appellate Courts on the other. If such decisions are made due to institutional constraints, they do not augur well. The district judiciary is expected to be the foundational court, and therefore, should have the freedom of mind to decide a case on its own merit or else it might become a stereotyped one rendering conviction on a moral platform. Indictment and condemnation over a decision rendered, on considering all the materials placed before it, should be avoided. The
$2
Appellate Court is expected to maintain a degree of caution before making any remark.
23. This court, time and again has laid down the law on the scope of inquiry by an Appellate court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC. We do not wish to multiply the aforesaid principle except placing reliance on a recent decision of this court in Anwar Ali v. State of Himanchal Pradesh, (2020) 10 SCC 166:
14.2. When can the findings of fact recorded by a court be held to be perverse has been dealt with and considered in paragraph 20 of the aforesaid decision, which reads as under : (Babu case [Babu v. St ate of Kerala , (2010) 9 SCC 189 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1179]) "20. 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. The 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. (Vide Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. [Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn., (1984) 4 SCC 635 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 131], Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v.
Gopi Nath & Sons [Excise & Taxation Officer-cumAssessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312], Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE [Triveni Rubber & Plastics v. CCE, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 665], Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad [Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad, (2001) 1 SCC 501], Aruvelu [Arulvelu v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 288] and Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of A.P.
$5
Rao v. State of A.P., (2009) 10 SCC 636 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 372] )"
It is further observed, after following the decision of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police [Kuldeep Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10: 1999 SCC (L&S) 429], that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with."
8 1$
$ ## ((
$(+
$
$(" $ #( $$ $
$ *(
(( & $
!
)
## ((
# *(
) * $
$
#(+ "
$
) # *( $$
$
$
4"& $
'" (
## ((
$ '"
$
*
" $ (
$ (( &( +
&"( +
#"&$ 4"& $
'" ( !
$ ##( $
16'5 7" 4 8
$"
" @
$ 6# $&A 6 @
# *( 6
$8