The appellate court should avoid interference in acquittal cases unless there are compelling circumstances or the trial court's decision is found to be perverse.

Headnote:
Acquittal - Criminal Law - Section 302 I.P.C., Section 25 of Arms Act - 378(3) Cr.P.C. - 372 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed against the order of acquittal of the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act. The incident involved theft of electricity cable, resulting in the death of the informant's father. The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of credible evidence and contradictions in witness statements.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court's acquittal was not perverse and there were no sufficient grounds for interference. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt, and the evidence presented was contradictory and unreliable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness statements, promptness of the first information report, and the recovery of the weapon used in the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court must consider whether the trial court failed to consider admissible evidence or considered evidence contrary to law. The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the trial court's advantage in evaluating witness credibility were emphasized.
Final Decision: The appeal was summarily dismissed under Section 384 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant and Ms. Nandprabha Shukla, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

2. As already held by this Court in number of cases that leave application filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is not required in the appeal filed by the victim under Section 372 Cr.P.C. like the present appeal. A reference may be made to the order dated 4.8.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal U/S 372 Cr.P.C. No. 123 of 2021 (Rita Devi vs. State of U.P. and another). As such, the application for leave to appeal stands rejected as not maintainable and / or not required.

3. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.7.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Mathura acquitting the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 25 of Arms Act in Sessions Trial No. 764 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of 2012, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Session Trial No. 765 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 97 of 2012, under Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Maant, District Mathura.

4. According to the first information report on 4.6.2012 at about 09:00 P.M. certain persons on highway were committing theft of electricity cable from the electricity poll. On coming to know father of the informant (Virendra Singh) deceased Dorilal s/o Chhitariya reached on the spot along with certain other persons. The persons, who were committing theft, fired hitting the chest of Dorilal (father of the informant), who died on the spot. First information report was registered at 21:50 against unknown persons as Case Crime No. 85 of 2012, under Sections 302, 379, 511 I.P.C., P.S. Maant, District Mathura.

5. In support of prosecution case P.W.-1 Virendra, P.W.-2 Parsadi, P.W.-3 Shivcharan, P.W.-4 Dalchand, P.W.-5 Phoolwati, P.W.-6 S.O Sri Arvind Kumar, P.W.-7 Dr. D.S. Naviyal, P.W.-8 Constable Clerk Sher Singh, P.W.-9 H.C.P. Manni Singh, P.W.10-S.I. Sri Rajendra Singh, P.W.-11 S.I. Sri Radhakrishna and P.W.-12 Sri Sri Omprakash were produced. Two accused persons Geetaram s/o Jagna and Talewar s/o Ramjilal were arrested by the police on pointing out of the informant in the night of 12/13.7.2012 at about 01:00 A.M and a countrymade pistol of 315 bore with one live and one empty cartridge were recovered from the possession of Geetaram. No other recovery was made by other co-accused Talewar. The Case Crime No. 97 of 2012, under Section 25 of Arms Act, P.S. Maant, District Mathura was registered against Geetaram. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied the incident and submitted that they have not committed the offence and their claim was that some other unidentified persons, who were committing theft of electricity cable, had committed the crime.

6. The accused persons were acquitted by the trial court on the ground that all the witnesses are related witnesses and the recovered weapon could not be connected with the crime. It was further found that the statement made by the prosecution witnesses were contradictory in nature and the incident was described in different ways and there was no eye witness of the spot. It was found by the trial court that all the alleged eye witnesses have not proved the incident. It was also found that the eye witnesses were present when report was given by the informant but names of such persons were not disclosed in the first information report and it was alleged that some unidentified persons have committed the crime. It was further found that the incident had taken place in the night of 4.6.2012 at about 09:00 P.M., whereas the accused persons Geetaram and Talewar were arrested after about 5-6 weeks on 12/13.7.2012 and apart from country-made pistol of 315 bore one live cartridge and one empty cartridge were also recovered from them. Since, it was not understandable that how the used cartridge is connected with the incident herein, therefore, the F.S.L. report was found not worth-believe and no assistance could h