The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the need for compelling circumstances to interfere with an order of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J.

1. Heard learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. G.K. Vaghani on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Kandrap Dholkia for the respondents at length.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar in the Special Case No. 1 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Devabhai Somabhai Parmar put the electric shock through the wire in the farm of the accused no.2- Jagabhai jadavbhai and therefore, the son of the complainant viz., Sanjay received shock and died. That, therefore, the complainant lodged the complaint against the accused persons, and hence the accused persons requested the complainant to withdraw his complaint filed against the accused but the complainant did not agree with the accused persons. That, therefore, the accused got excited and abused by uttering obscene words in public and also threatened to kill the complainant. That, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused-respondents before the learned JMFC, Jamnagar. Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the matter was committed to the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 1 of 2008. Since, the accused has not pleaded guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and the prosecution therefore, led the evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar acquitted the accused and therefore, the State has preferred this appeal.

4. Learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the State has submitted that the learned Special Judge, has acquitted the accused and thereby committed an error and therefore, this appeal may be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. G.K. Vaghani on behalf of learned advocate Mr. Kandrap Dholkia for the respondents has submitted that the learned Special Judge has rightly observed and acquitted the accused and therefore there is no need of interference by this Court and the appeal may be dismissed.

6. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court would like to refer as under:

6.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to the scope of interference 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 innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

6.2 Further, 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. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrive at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person, and therefore,