Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J.
Shri Kripal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.REV.P. 365 of 2019
Decided On : 01-06-2023
Acquittal - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 - The court dismissed the appeal against the acquittal of the respondent no. 2 by the learned Trial Court and the judgment of the learned Appellate Court upholding the acquittal. The courts carefully scrutinized the evidence on record and found no ground to interfere with the acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and his deceased wife were involved in a road accident, and the respondent no. 2 was acquitted of the charges of negligence and causing the accident due to lack of evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The courts found that the evidence on record did not establish the guilt of the respondent no. 2 beyond reasonable doubt, and the testimonies of the witnesses were contradictory and lacked corroboration. The courts upheld the acquittal based on the lack of conclusive evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence to establish the guilt of the respondent no. 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts emphasized the principle that an order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless it is shown to be arrived at by incorrect or perverse appreciation of the evidence on record and the law. The courts also highlighted the importance of corroborated and reliable evidence in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The present petition was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent no. 2 was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Amit Sharma, J.
1. The present petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`CrPC') challenges the judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Special Judge, NDPS-02, Tis Hazari Courts, Central District, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 401/2018, whereby the learned Additional Session Judge upheld the judgment dated 27.07.2018, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are as under:
i. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.06.2007, at around 1:00 am, Mr. Kirpal Singh (petitioner) along with his deceased wife, Late Ms. Surender Kaur, on the pillion seat were riding on their scooter bearing no. DL-6SK-4852, near Shankar Road, Gol Chakkar, Rajender Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 driving a Maruti Zen car bearing no. DL-9CB-6186, at a very high speed hit the scooter of the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner allegedly under the influence of the alcohol. Due to the said impact, the appellant and his deceased wife suffered serious injuries.
ii. The petitioner and his wife were immediately rushed to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, with the help of 4-5 people in a private vehicle and thereafter were admitted in the hospital.
iii. On 06.06.2007, the police registered an FIR bearing No. 148/2007, under Sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC'), registered at P.S. Rajender Nagar. On 18.06.2007, wife of the petitioner was declared dead, after undergoing few days of treatment at the aforesaid Hospital.
iv. Subsequently, on 02.08.2007 chargesheet was filed qua respondent no. 2, herein, in FIR No. 148/2007, under Sections 279/338/304A of the IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (`MV Act'), registered at P.S. Rajender Nagar. Consequently, vide order dated 03.08.2010, charges were framed under Section 279/338/304A of the IPC and 185 of the MV Act.
v. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide judgment dated 27.07.2018, acquitted respondent no. 2, herein, in Criminal Case No. 300901/2016, titled `State v. Rahis Ahmed'. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate while acquitting respondent no. 2, recorded as under:
"18. From the material on record, it is clear that prosecution witnesses PW1 Mr.Vishnu Sharma & PW3 Mr.Kirpal Singh have contradicted in respect of material aspects. Testimony of PWl Mr.Vishnu Sharma is not free from doubts. Investigation is shoddy as other key witnesses were not examined and no photographs of the spot was taken. PW3 Mr.Kripal Singh stated that after the accident he became unconscious and was taken to the hospital. PW7/IO SI Om Prakash stated that he cannot say whether the accident occurred due to negligence of accused or Mr.Kripal Singh. The testimony of Mr.Kripal Singh is not corroborated by the other witnesses cited by the prosecution. The MLC of driver only mentions smell of alcohol but no blood test is conducted to ensure presence of alcohol. The investigation in respect of Section 185 M.V.Act is also remained unsatisfactory
19. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt given to the accused Rahis Ahmed S/o Sh. Zahoor, Ahmed, and accused Rahis Ahmed S/o Sh.Zahoor Ahmed is acquitted in present FIR No.148/2007 PS Rajinder Nagar for the offence under Section 279/338/304-A IPC."
vi. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the petitioner preferred an appeal, before the learned District and Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi.
vii. The learned Additional Session Judge vide judgment dated 10.12.2018, in Criminal Appeal No. 401/2018, bearing FIR No. 148/2007, registered at P.S. Rajinder Nagar, titled `Shri Kirpal Singh v. State & Ors.', dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner herein and upheld the order passed by the learn
The judgment emphasizes the principle that an order of acquittal should not be interfered with unless it is shown to be arrived at by incorrect or perverse appreciation of the evidence on record and ....
In appeals against acquittal, courts must respect the presumption of innocence and should only interfere if the trial's conclusions are shown to be perverse or based on erroneous appreciation of evid....
In appeals against acquittal, courts must uphold the presumption of innocence and require a high burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate perverse findings to overturn an acquittal.
Point of law : 42(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Point of law : where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, i....
The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the trial court's findings are perverse or unsustainable, respecting the presumption of innocence.
It is settled law that if main grounds on which lower Court has based its order acquitting accused are reasonable and plausible, and same cannot be entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished....
An acquittal can be upheld when evidence does not unequivocally establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reaffirming the principle of presumption of innocence.
Court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of acquittal as in case of an appeal against an order of conviction, subject to riders that presumption of....
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
