A verdict of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with by the appellate court, even if two views are possible, and the appellate court is expected to subscribe to the view that favors the accused-person.

P.K LOHRA, J.

1. State has laid this Criminal Leave to Appeal under Section 378(iii) & (i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to challenge the acquittal of accused-respondent for offence under Sections 333 and 477 IPC, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge No. 4, Bikaner (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), vide its judgment dated 21st of December, 2016.

2. Facts, in brief, giving rise to this Leave to Appeal are that pursuant to a written report dated 10th of February 2010, FIR No. 22/2010 was registered with Police Station Khajuwala, District Bikaner against accused-respondent for offence punishable under Sections 332, 353, 333, 149 and 477 IPC. Police after investigation charged the accused-respondent for offence under Sections 332, 353, 333 and 477 IPC. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused-respondent and upon denial of charges, he was put on trial. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses and also exhibited fifteen documents to substantiate its case. After recording statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he examined three witnesses in his defence.

3. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded a definite finding that charges against accused-respondent under Sections 333 & 477 IPC are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. While considering charges for offence under Sections 332 and 353 IPC, the learned trial Court found that the same are proved, but, taking into account the sentence prescribed for these offences and the age of accused, who is septuagenarian, the learned trial Court extended benefit of probation to him.

4. It is also noteworthy that earlier in a criminal Leave to Appeal No. 904/2017, challenging the impugned verdict, precisely, for the reason that the learned trial Court erroneously extended the benefit of doubt, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, upon consideration of the matter, did not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and consequently rejected the appeal on 19th of July 2017.

5. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned judgment and also scanned the entire record of the case.

6. Upon examining the matter in its entirety and after perusal of the impugned judgment as well as judgment passed by Coordinate Bench in S.B Criminal Appeal No. 904/2017, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has not committed any manifest error in appreciation of evidence for acquitting the accused-respondent of offence under Sections 333 and 477 IPC.

7. The learned trial Court has recorded a definite finding that prosecution has not been able to prove both the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The legal position is no more res-integra that a verdict of acquittal is not liable to be interfered with by the appellate court even if two views are possible and the appellate Court is expected to subscribe the view, which favours the cause of accused-person.

8. In totality, I am unable to find any perversity in the impugned judgment in appreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court, nor the same can be said to be not satisfying the test of predency.

9. In view of foregoing discussion, no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out.

10. Consequently, leave is declined and the appeal is, hereby, rejected.