Point of Law: 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 innocence with which accused person starts in trial court continues even up to appellate stage and that appellate court should attach due weight to opinion of trial court which recorded order of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. Criminal Appeal No. 2563 of 2008 is filed by the Appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereas Criminal Revision Application No. 667 of 2008 is filed by the Applicant / Original complainant challenging the judgment and order dated 24.06.2008, passed in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2005 by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Junagadh, recording the acquittal.

2. Learned APP has fairly submitted that despite sufficient opportunity being given to the Applicant in Criminal Revision Application, the Applicant has chosen not to appear, therefore, the matters may be heard on merits. On such premises, the court has proceeded for final hearing in both the matters.

3. The facts, in brief, are that a private complaint dated 25.11.2003 came to be filed by the complainant, resident of Dhebar, Taluka Visavadar before the court of learned Magistrate, Visavadar, wherein the learned Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3) and directed the concerned police station to inquire into the matter and submit the report. It is alleged in the said complaint that the complainant is studying in FY B.Com and residing with his family at Dhebar Village. Her father is doing agriculture work in the village. It is alleged that when the complainant was studying in 12th Standard, she came in contact with the respondent – accused No.7 – Dayaben Vaghasiya and thereafter relations were developed and they became best friends. As as result of that, the complainant was having full trust in the Respondent – Accused No.7. On 15.6.2003, the Respondent – Accused No.7 requested the complainant to come with her to Galdhara. Hence, the complainant had gone with the Respondent – Accused No.7, where the accused with the help of each other, had taken signature on the papers by keeping her in dark and thereafter informed her that marriage is taken place between the complainant and the Respondent – Accused No.5 – Asvinbhai. Thereafter, she was threatened not to tell anyone about the same, otherwise, they would kill her father and also destroy her family. Hence, the complainant did not inform about the said fact to anyone. The accused had also taken benefits of her. The accused persons therefore have committed the offence punishable under Sections 366, 341, 506(2), 114 of the Indian Penal Code for which, FIR came to be registered against them.

3.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 13 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences in question. The learned Judge trial Judge framed the Charge against the accused persons. Since the accused persons did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused persons. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2008, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal and the Original Complainant has preferred Criminal Revision Application.

4. Heard, learned APP Mr. Hardik Soni for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra with learned Advocate Mr. Mukesh T. Mishra for the respondents appearing in Criminal Appeal No. 2563 of 2008.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the prosecution case.

The learned APP has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the trial court is perverse and requires to be interfered with by this court by setting aside the same. He has therefore submitted that the Appeal requires consideration and deserves to be allowed.

5.1 The learned APP, taking this Court through the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, submitted that though the prosecution has proved the case against