In cases of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused, and the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so.

Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Criminal Law - IPC 420, 376, 328, 506 - The court allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. The State challenged the order on the ground that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the High Court found no perversity or illegality in the order of acquittal and dismissed the application for grant of leave to appeal.
Fact of the Case:

The application was for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. The State challenged the order on the ground that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the order of acquittal and dismissed the application for grant of leave to appeal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to challenge the order of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that in cases of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favor of the accused, and the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so. The court also highlighted the importance of credible testimony and the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The application for grant of leave to appeal was dismissed, and the case property, if any, was ordered to be dealt with and destroyed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The Trial Court record was to be sent back.

JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Tiwari, J. - CRM-38642-2018

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the present appeal.

2. Heard, sufficient cause has been shown for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the application is allowed.

Main case

3. Instant application, for grant of leave to appeal, is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by Addl. Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court for Heinous Crime against Women and Children), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. The Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondent from the charges framed under Sections 420, 376, 328, 506 IPC, 1860 vide judgment dated 28.03.2018.

4. The appellant-State has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the statement of complainant/prosecutrix (name of the prosecutrix is withheld in view of provisions of Section 228(A) of IPC) hereinafter, referred as complainant, was not appreciated by the trial Court in its right perspective. And that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that apart from the statement of the complainant, prosecution successfully proved documentary evidence (that are/that were brought) on record, which further corroborate the version of the complainant and that the same is sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused.

5. Before we examine the legality of the order of acquittal recorded by learned trial court, it would be apt to first deal with the factual matrix of the present case.

6. The prosecution agency was set into motion on an application Ex.PW-6/A filed by the complainant, who was examined during trial as PW-7. In her complaint, she levelled allegations against respondent-accused that he had induced her to deliver Rs.10 lakhs and her jewellery items to him, under the assurance of providing job to her. Secondly, that on 22.10.2014, accused-respondent called her in his office 'Prime Tech International' and gave her juice to drink and thereafter, she became unconscious and in her unconscious state accused raped her and took her obscene photographs. The respondent-accused also gave two affidavits and two cheques amounting to Rs.10 lakhs and Rs.1 lakh respectively. On the basis of aforesaid application Ex.PW-6/A, a formal FIR was registered. Matter was investigated; respondentaccused was arrested and he was subjected to medico-legal examination by Dr. Anoop Goel, Medical Officer, MLGH, Yamuna Nagar, examined as PW-2, during trial. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. She was also subjected to medico-legal examination by Dr. Pragati Garg, Medical Officer, MLGH, Yamuna Nagar, examined as PW-3, during trial. It is apt to mention here that the victim refused to get her medical examination done. After completion of investigation proceedings, final report was filed before the learned trial court.

7. Trial Court framed charges against the respondent-accused under Sections 420, 376, 328, 506 IPC, 1860 vide order dated 04.02.2016. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses whereas, Inspector/SHO Rajeev, Smt. Nirmal Kanta and Constable Pardeep were given up as unnecessary witnesses and witness Sanjay Tyagi was given up being won over by respondent-accused.

8. Apart from the oral evidence, prosecution placed on record various documentary evidence. Learned trial court after considering the ocular and documentary evidence recorded the finding of acquittal. Now the State has filed present application for grant of leave to appeal to challenge the order of acquittal. There is no dispute that the Code does not impose any such restriction upon Appellate Court while dealing with an order of acquittal. High Court has full power to appreciate the entire evidence to reach its own independent conclusion. It is open for High Court to re-determine the question of facts and law. For this, we place reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, 2008 (9) SCC 475.

9. Hon'