DWARKA DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) While there cannot be any denial of the factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal, either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in that event, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial Court, would have taken the other view. While reappreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there would be gross miscarriage of justice so said Pattanaik, J. in Hariram and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2000) 9 SCC 136.

(3.) Two earlier decisions of this Court ought also to be noticed in this context, namely, Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225, wherein in paragraph 7 of the Report this Court observed :