Back
High Court of Delhi
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Tejram
Versus
State Nct of Delhi
CRL.A. No. 142 of 2012
Decided On: 19-11-2014
Acquittal - Criminal Appeal - 308/34 IPC - [State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Another, (2007) 3 SCC 755, Tota Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529, Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225, State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180] - The court discussed the parameters of appreciation of evidence on record and jurisdiction and limitations of the appellate court in dealing with appeal against order of acquittal. The court emphasized that interference with an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made unless the approach made by the lower court to the consideration of the evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. The court also highlighted that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. The court further emphasized that the appellate court should interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Shri Tej Ram, filed a criminal appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment acquitting respondents 2 to 6 in a case under section 308/34 IPC. The prosecution case was based on the victim's identification of the accused as the assailants, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapons of offense. The trial court acquitted the accused by granting them the benefit of doubt. The victim appealed against this decision, claiming that the judgment was perverse and deserved to be set aside.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the victim and his sons was unreliable and lacked corroboration. It also noted discrepancies in the evidence related to the presence of witnesses at the scene of the crime and the recovery of weapons. The court concluded that the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents was not perverse, patently illegal, or wholly untenable, and therefore, dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the victim's testimony, corroboration of evidence, and the recovery of weapons. The main issue was whether the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that interference with an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made unless the approach made by the lower court to the consideration of the evidence is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. The court also highlighted that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. The court further emphasized that the appellate court should interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's decision to acquit the respondents was upheld.
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. This criminal appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C has been filed by the victim Shri Tej Ram, feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.11.2011 in case FIR No.548/2004 u/s 308/34 IPC, P.S. Mehrauli, vide which respondents 2 to 6 were acquitted.
2. Succinctly stated, prosecution case is as follows:-
D.D.No.19 dated 05.09.2004 was recorded on the basis of an information received from HC Rohtash of PCR regarding quarrel at the house of Dev Ram at Village Chandanhola. HC Hanuman Sahai(PW7) along with HC Manohar (PW8) reached the spot at village Chandanhola and came to know that Tej Ram (PW3) with whom quarrel had taken place had received several injuries and was taken by PCR officials to hospital. Accordingly both the police officials went to AIIMS where Tej Ram was found admitted. However, on MLC, the Doctor declared him unfit for statement. No eye witness was present at the scene of crime or in the hospital, as such HC Hanuman Sahai wrote Tehrir Ex. PW7/A and got the FIR u/s 308 IPC registered which was entrusted to SI Devender (PW12) for further investigation. SI Devender recorded the statement of Naveen (PW2), son of injured Tej Ram on 06.09.2004. Statement of Tej Ram was also recorded on 06.09.2004. During the course of investigation, the accused were arrested. Iron rods and hockey were recovered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against them.
3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons while recording their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied the case of prosecution and pleaded innocence. Accused Sushil submitted that 15 to 20 days prior to the occurrence, a quarrel had taken place between his brother and Jagat who was cousin brother of Tej Ram. Jagat had complained to police and police registered the case u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. It was further alleged that no quarrel took place with Tej Ram and the accused were falsely implicated in this case. Accused Manoj took the same plea as that of Sushil. All the remaining accused pleaded their innocence. Accused Sanjay examined Manoj Kumar (DW1) and Sandeep Kumar, Junior Judicial Assistant, Record Keeper, Delhi High Court, (DW3). Besides that, he examined himself as DW2 for taking the plea that he was not present at the place of incident. After examining the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence evidence, vide impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused by granting them benefit of doubt.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the written submissions filed by them and the Trial Court record.
5. In the written submission filed by the appellant, it was submitted that the victim identified all the accused persons to be the assailants of the crime and has also proved that he has sustained grievous injuries. The medical evidence corroborates the oral evidence. The weapon of offence were also recovered at the instance of accused persons. Despite that respondents were acquitted. The impugned judgment is perverse and deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra learned counsel for respondent no.2 to 6 supported the findings of the learned Trial court for submitting that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. It was further submitted that it is a settled law that the High Court is not to interfere in the order of acquittal unless the order of Trial Court is perverse, totally against the evidence and is rendered in complete breach of settled principles underlying criminal jurisprudence.
7. The law relating to an appeal against an order of acquittal was succinctly laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran and Another, (2007) 3 SCC 755 and it will be advantageous to reproduce the observations made by the Supreme Court as under:-
“By a series of decisions, this Court has laid down the parameters
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
