The need for reliable and corroborated evidence to establish guilt, and the caution required when assessing conflicting witness testimony.

The appellant by filing this appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “the Code”) questioned the legality of the judgment of acquittal dated 05.01.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. Case no. 3797 of 2008 arising out of Jogta P.S. case no. 140 of 2008.

2. In short, the case of prosecution is based on the complaint filed by the informant Jairani Devi bearing C.P. Case no. 768 of 2008, which was subsequently forwarded to the police station and registered as the aforesaid case with the allegation that accused Rajender Paswan took her husband Karu Paswan on 26.04.2008 at 8.00 a.m. but when her husband did not return till the noon, she went to the house of the accused and asked about her husband and at that time, Bholi Paswan was also present there and both abused her and compelled her to leave the place and also asked her to go and inform the police. At about 1.00 P.M., the said accused Rajender Paswan and Bholi Paswan came to her house and again abused her. Rajender Paswan caught her from behind and Bholi Paswan tried to pull her down with some wrong intention and in altercation, her blouse and saari got torn. Accused Rajender Paswan assaulted her on head and caused injury with fists on other parts of the body. She went to the police station to lodge the case but the accused persons tried to settle the matter. However, again on the next day, the accused persons abused her and threw stones on her house whereafter the aforesaid case was instituted under Section 448, 376/511, 326 and 504 I.P.C.

3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet. Accordingly, cognizance of offence was taken under the aforesaid sections. Subsequently, the case was committed to the court of sessions but as no case under Section 376/511 of I.P.C. was made out, the case record was returned to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for framing of charge. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 354/324/448/504 of I.P.C. The trial court after examination of the witnesses and considering the submissions of the counsels acquitted the accused persons of the charges by impugned judgment dated 05.01.2015 and discharged them from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Hence, this appeal by the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal as bad in law and perverse seriously contended that the court below failed to consider the prosecution witnesses in right perspective and without applying judicial mind in a mechanical manner acquitted the accused persons. It was also submitted that there is sufficient evidence available on record to show the complicity of the accused persons and to prove the ingredients responsible to constitute the offences as alleged but the court below without relying upon the evidences of this prosecutrix and merely relying upon the evidence of other witnesses passed the impugned judgment, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. The court below further failed to appreciate the medical evidence available on record.

5. Before I enter into the veils of submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, the scope of appeal filed under Section 372 of the Code is necessary to be examined. It is well settled that an appeal against an order of acquittal is also an appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure and an appellate court has every power to re-appreciate, review and reconsider the evidence before it as a whole but undoubtedly there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and that presumption is reinforced by an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It is for the appellate court to keep in mind the principles of law to re-appreciate and reweigh the evidence as a whole and to come to its own conclusion on such evidence, in consonance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilt and