Point of Law: Where trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of evidence which is but barely possible, it is obvious duty of High Court to interfere in interest of justice, lest administration of justice be brought to ridicule.

JUDGMENT :

1. The matter was called out thrice, however, no one has remained present on behalf of the respondent – accused. The matter is of 2008 and hence, the Court proceeded with the matter and heard the same finally.

2. This appeal is filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 18.08.2007, passed in Criminal Case No. 693 of 2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahesana, recording the acquittal.

3. Brief facts are that on 27.12.2004 at about 15:30 hours, the respondent herein was found cutting the trees in the land belonging to the Meetha Gram Panchayat and stealing the same and accordingly, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as “the IPC”) and Sections 3 and 7 of the Felling of Trees Act had been registered.

3.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of several witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence. After completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence in question. The learned Judge trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard, Ms. Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made available the relevant papers for perusal of the Court.

4.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the respondents – accused.

4.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking this Court through the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, submitted that though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and thereby, has committed an error in recording acquittal. It is submitted that all the ingredients of the offence alleged had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, however, the learned trial Judge did not believe the same and therefore, the impugned judgment and order suffers from material illegality, perversity and contrary to the facts and evidence on record.

4.3 Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that although cogent and material evidence had been produced by the prosecution and the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court has committed a grave error in acquitting the accused and accordingly, it is urged that present appeal may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court as well as the material on record.

5.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to the scope in acquittal appeals. It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the accused, firstly, the presumption of innoce