An acquittal can only be overturned with compelling reasons; the presumption of innocence remains strong unless the trial court's decision is palpably erroneous.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Garg, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offences under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325 & 325/34 IPC vide judgment dated 07.03.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, District Jalore in Sessions Case No. 26/2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.2011, the appellant-complainant Sagra Ram submitted a written report before SHO, PS Sayla to the effect that when his daughter-in-laws namely Kali Devi and Havia Devi were passing through one field to another, accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 came armed with kulhari and Sudki and started beating his daughter-in-laws and they received grievous injuries.

3. On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 for offence under Sections 341, 323, 325/34 IPC. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 07.03.2018 acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offence under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325 & 325/34 IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 for offence under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325 & 325/34 IPC. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325 & 325/34 IPC.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 have vehemently opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the order of acquittal is just and proper and therefore, no interference is required.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial.

9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 from offence under Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 325 & 325/34 IPC.

10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.

11. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”,for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic