The scope of interference against an order of acquittal is limited and the appellate court should not interfere unless there are compelling and substantial grounds.

Headnote:
Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed a revision petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri, who had reversed the acquittal of respondents 1-3 and reduced the sentence of respondent 4 in a criminal case. The Magistrate had convicted all the accused, but the appellate court acquitted respondents 1-3 and convicted respondent 4 under Section 325 of the IPC with a reduced sentence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellate court had considered the evidence and acquitted respondents 1-3 as there was no evidence of their involvement in the assault. The court also found that the reduction of sentence for respondent 4 was justified.
Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in acquitting respondents 1-3 and reducing the sentence of respondent 4.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the scope of interference against an order of acquittal is limited and that the appellate court should not interfere unless there are compelling and substantial grounds. The court also noted that the appellate court had considered the evidence and given reasons for its decision.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order of the appellate court.

ORDER

The present revision is filed under Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri, Dist. Dhar in Criminal Appeal No.2/15 reversing the judgment dated 19.11.2014 passed by JMFC, Dharampuri, Dist. Dhar in Criminal Case No.1090/2010 acquitting the respondents No.1-3 and reducing the sentence of respondent No.4.

2. Counsel for the applicant submits that the Magistrate has convicted all the accused persons, however, the appellate Court has acquitted the respondents No.1-3 and convicted the appellant No.4 under Section 325 of IPC, but reduced his jail sentence from 2 years to six months RI and awarded Rs.700/- each fine amount. Counsel for the applicant argued that the appellate Court erred while acquitting the accused persons No.1-3 and also reducing the jail sentence of the respondent No.4.

4. Counsel for the respondents submits that the appellate Court has recorded the finding after evaluation of the facts and evidence of the case. No interference is called for against the order of acquittal and the jail sentence awarded to the respondent No.4.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the appellate Court has considered the statement of the victim/complainant Sanjay, who deposed that all the accused persons have beaten him with fists and kicks. However, the eyewitness Prakash did not support the statement of the complainant and stated that only accused appellant had beaten by fists and kicks and the other accused persons were only standing at the spot. This Court has also taken into consideration the statement of PW-3 Rajaram and held that the non-applicants No.1-3 are entitled for acquittal because merely their presence have been shown at the spot and no overt act is alleged. The Court has also reduced the jail sentence of the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 has also filed a revision CRR No.461/2015 against this order of conviction by the appellate Court. The said revision has been allowed partly and fine amount has been enhanced from Rs.700/- to Rs.5000/- and the said fine amount has been directed to be deposited within two months from today. Thus, the revision filed by respondent No.4 has been partly allowed. This Court does not find any error in the order of acquittal of respondents No.1-3 and the order of sentence reduced in respect of respondent No.4.

6. Further, the scope of interference against an order of acquittal is very limited. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Vs. K. Narsimhachary reported in (2005) 8 SCC 364 said that as per well settled principle, if two views are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the lower Court; it can only be interpreted where the material on record leads to sole inescapable conclusion of the guilt of accused.

In the case of T. Subramanian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 401, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle relying upon said judgment and by interfering in appeal the judgment of the High Court was set aside restoring the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused. In the case of K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan reported in (2008) 1 SCC 258, the Apex Court has observed that in case two views are possible, the appellate Court shall not reverse the judgment of acquittal only because the another view may be possibly taken.

7. The Apex Court has held in the case of Mahavir Singh Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220 that in the cases of acquittal by the court of law, the court has to be very cautious in interfering in an appeal unless there are compelling and substantial grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal.

8. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law and appreciation of facts and evidence, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the present revision being devoid of any merit and subs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document