IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the presumption of innocence in acquittals, stating that interference requires compelling reasons and substantial evidence.

ORDER :

1. The matter is listed in ‘Defect category’ as the appeal is time barred by 218 days. An application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and matter is taken up for hearing.

3. The appellant has filed the present criminal leave to appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bikaner whereby, the trial Court acquitted the respondent No.2 to 4 from the charges for offence under Sections 323, 341, 427 & 34 IPC.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant petitioner submitted a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner stating there in that there is civil dispute pending between her and the respondents No.2 to 4. It was alleged that the respondents No.2 to 4 came to her and took away the documents related property and other important documents. It was further alleged that the respondents No.2 to 4 also beaten her husband Hanuman Ram.

5. The complaint was forwarded to the concerned Police station and FIR No. 217/2018 came to be registered against the respondents No.2 to 4 for offence under Sections 323, 341, 427 & 34 IPC.

6. After investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the accused respondents No.2 to 4 for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 427 & 34 IPC. Learned trial court took cognizance against the respondents No.2 to 4 for aforesaid offences and charges were framed against him. After conclusion of trial, the learned trial court acquitted the respondents No.2 to 4 from the charges levelled against them vide judgment dated 18.01.2024.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence acquitted the respondents No.2 to 4 from the offence under Sections 323, 341, 427 & 34 IPC. It is argued that the court below have discarded the evidence of appellant whereas, from the statement of prosecution witensses and documentary evidence, a clear case is made out against the respondents No.2 to 4. But the learned trial court acquitted the respondents by giving them benefit of doubt. Thus the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the trial court for passing fresh order.

8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.

9. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondent on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove that the respondents No.2 to 4 had forcibly entered into her house and beaten her husband Hanuman Ram. It has been specifically observed that the prosecution has not examined the said witness Hanuman Ram and the allegations are not proved by adducing independent witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court.

10. 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 experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.

11. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (201