Appellate courts must exercise restraint in overturning acquittals, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and requiring compelling reasons for interference.

JUDGMENT (Per Revati Mohite Dere, J.) :

1 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2 By this appeal preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has impugned the judgment and order dated 2^nd May 2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, in Sessions Case No.152/2018, by which the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent No. 2 of the offences punishable under Sections 376 , 420, 465, 468, 323, 504, 506 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code .

3 Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent No. 2, the appellant has filed the aforesaid appeal.

4 Perused the papers as well as the evidence, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P.

5 The appellant/complainant is a married lady, aged 33 years. According to the appellant, the respondent No. 2 had physical relations with her, on the pretext of marriage and promise to give her a job. Accordingly, the appellant lodged an FIR as against the respondent No. 2 alleging various offences.

6 After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the said case. Since the offences were triable by the Court of Sessions, the case came to be transferred to the Court of Sessions for trial.

7 The prosecution essentially relied on the evidence of PW1 i.e. the appellant; PW2-Kishore Dange, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Malegaon, who examined PW1 after FIR was registered; PW3-Kishore Kadam, the landlord of the premises, where the appellant and respondent No.2 were staying; PW4- Yuvraj More, a neighbour, where the appellant and respondent No.2 were residing; PW5-Sandip Gaikwad (hostile); PW6-Anil Jain, a neighbour of the appellant and respondent No.2; PW7- Vinod Sonawane, also a neighbour of the appellant and respondent No.2 and PW8-Rahul Patil, the Investigating Officer.

8 The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, acquitted the respondent No. 2 of all the offences with which he was charged.

9 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the acquittal was perverse and not in consonance with the evidence led by the prosecution and as such warranted interference.

10 At the outset, we may note that the scope of appeal against acquittal is narrow. The law with regard to the scope of interference by the Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, is no longer res integra.

11 In Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor , 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42 one of the earliest case dealing with the scope of the Appellate Court against an order of acquittal, the Privy Council held as under on page 404:

“Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this however is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice.”

12 The Supreme Court in M.G.Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1963 SC 200 in paras 16 and 17 has observed as under:

“16. Section 423(1) prescribes the powers of the appellate court in disposing of appeals preferred before it and clauses (a) and (b) deal