An acquittal should only be overturned if compelling reasons exist, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the burden on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment :

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused-respondents No.2 to 6 from offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC vide judgment dated 31.05.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, South No.1, Udaipur in Case No.1226/2010 (CIS No.4444/2014).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant filed a complaint against the accused-respondents before the Police Station Pratap Nagar, Udaipur in respect of offence committed under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC.

3. On the said complaint, FIR was registered and after usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondents. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance and framed the charge against the accused-respondents for offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC. The accused-respondents denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of accused-respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined as DW-1 and only one document was produced.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2022 acquitted the accused- respondents No.2 to 6 from offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondents from the aforesaid offence despite the fact that there is ample evidence regarding cheating committed by the respondents with the appellant. It is submitted that there was a contract agreement between the firms of the appellant and the accused-respondents but, the accused-respondents by violating the contract had committed offence for criminal breach of trust. The learned trial court did not consider the evidence as well as and aforesaid aspects of the matter in its right perspective and wrongly acquitted the accused-respondents from the aforesaid offences. Thus, the impugned judgment being per se illegal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused- respondents ought to have been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the appellant and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents after due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.

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-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent from offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC. 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 l