- (1.) COMPLAINANT-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 04.09.2003 passed by the Civil Judge(Jr. Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shree Mahaveerji, whereby accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6 have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149 and 326/149 IPC.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 09.11.1995, a report Ex.P2 was lodged at Police Station Shree Mahaveerji by complainant Kanchan about injuries inflicted on his person by accused Amrit Lal by 'Gandasa' and other injuries by other accused persons by 'Lathi' i.e. blunt object. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against accused-respondent Nos.2 to 6. The trial Court framed charges against accused-respondents, who denied the same and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 to PW10 and produced documentary evidence Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. Thereafter, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, statements of DW1 and DW2 were recorded. Learned trial Court, after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that from the statements of PW2 Kanchan, PW6 Chhuttan, PW3 Dr. Hari Singh Meena and PW10 Dr. M.D. Qureshi, charges framed against accused persons were fully proved and the learned trial Court committed serious illegality in giving benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused respondents, therefore, this is a fit case wherein this Court should interfere in the order of acquittal and punish the accused-respondents. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by the trial Court for acquittal of the accused-respondents. The trial Court has considered the prosecution evidence in detail and has observed that incident took place in the morning at about 9'O Clock, whereas FIR was lodged in the evening at about 8.45 p.m., there is no reasonable explanation for delay in lodging the FIR, eye-witness PW4 Gyarsya was declared hostile and another eye-witness PW6 Chhuttan was examined but his name was not mentioned in the FIR, there is contradiction in respect of weapon used in the incident as in FIR it was alleged that accused Amrit Lal inflicted injury by 'Gandasa', whereas during trial it was alleged that he inflicted injury by 'Farsa', Investigating Agency did not recover any weapon alleged to have been used in the incident. Learned trial Court was also of the view that statement of PW2 Kanchan has not been corroborated by any other independent witness, whereas incident took place in the main market and in the day light, therefore, prosecution failed to prove charges against accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubts.
(3.) I have examined the statements of PW2, PW4 and PW6 and I am satisfied that the trial Court has correctly come to a conclusion that delay in lodging FIR has not been explained satisfactorily. It is also correct that PW4 Gyarsya, who was examined as eye-witness, was declared hostile in the case, another eye-witness PW6 Chhuttan was not named in the FIR, incident took place in the morning and in the day light, but no independent witness has corroborated the prosecution story, no weapon was recovered at the instance of any of the accused persons during investigation of the case. In these circumstances, I am of the view that reasons assigned by the trial Court for giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons appear to be absolutely legal and justified and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. Apart from above, Honourable Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bacchudas alias Balaram & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 1236) observed that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Honourable Apex Court further observed that the order of acquittal should not be interferred with unless there are some compelling and substantial reason or circumstances for doing so. Para 9 of the judgment(supra) is reproduced as under: "9. There is no embargo on the appellate court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of injustice which may arise from acquittal of the guilt is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence where the accused has been acquitted for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offences or not. The principle to be followed by the appellate court considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there is compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharahstra(1973(2)SCC 793); Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat(1996(9)SCC 225); Jaswant Vs. State of Harayana(2000(4)SCC 484); Rajkishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar(2003(11)SCC 519); State of Punjab Vs. Karnail Singh(2003(11)SCC 271); State of Punjab Vs. Phola Singh(2003(11)SCC 58); Suchand Pal Vs. Phani Pal(2003(11)SCC 527) and Sachchey Lal Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.(2004(11)SCC 410." ;