FAROOQ HASAN, J - (1.) THE State has filed these three criminal appeals after grant of leave to appeal by this Court. THEse appeals arise out of three separate judgments delivered by the Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, in three different Sessions cases which arose out of three first information reports lodged by three victims,nomcly, Meena Kumari, Sindoor Bai & Fatima with the allegations that Rohitash Kumar (respondent in these appeals) had committed sexual intercourse forcibly upon their persons while they were residing in the Rescue Home situated at Bharatpur & maintained by the Social Welfare Department of Rajasthan, in between July 27 and September 27, 1981.
(2.) AT joint request of both the parties, since the grounds of acquittal assigned by the trial Court under impugned judgements are similar and identical in favour of the respondent who was accused in the three cases out of which the present appeals arise, these three appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. In Sessions case No. 129/81, according to the charge framed against the respondent, he is alleged to have committed sexual intercourse on (he person of Mst. Fatima on or about or in between 27. 7. 81 & 27. 9. 81. In Sessions case No. 128/81. respondent, Rohitash Kumar, is alleged to have committed sexual intercourse on or about 27. 7. l981. on the person of Mst. Sindoori. And, in Sessions case No. 130/81, the respondent is alleged to have committed sexual intercourse on or about 27. 6. 1981 on the person of Meena Kumari. First information reports were lodged by the victims, named above, on 27. 9. 1981. The victims were medically examined on 28. 9. 1981. Before I dwell on the merits of the case, I feel it necessary to summerise legal position emerging from decisions of the Apex Court on the principles for interference with the orders of acquittal. In Salim Zia vs. State of U. P. (1), making reference of the cases in Sanwant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (2), Rambhupla Reddy vs. State of U. P. (3) Lekha Yadav vs. State of Bihar (4), and Barati Vs. State of U. P. (5) besides others, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal has full power to review at large the evidence on which the order of acquittal was founded and to reach the conclusion that upon the evidence, the order of acquittal should be reversed. According to the decision in Salim Zia Vs. State of U. P. (Supra), the different phraseology used in the judgments of which reference has been made therein, such as- (a) Substantial and compelling reasons; (b) good and sufficiently cogent reasons; (c) strong reasons, are not intended to curtail or place any limitation on the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion but, in doing so, it should give proper consideration to such matters as (i) the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (ii) 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: (iii) the right of the accused to the benefit of any real and reasonable doubt; and (iv) 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.
(3.) AGAIN, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Lalit Kumar Sharma Vs. Supdt. & Rememberancer of Legal Affairs, Govt. of West Bengal (6) while following one of the decisions on the context in Mathai Mathews vs. State of Maharashtra ( 7) pointed out that the power of an appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is an extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. According to the decision in Mathai Mathews vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), if a finding reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be an unreasonable finding, then the appellate court should not disturb that finding even if it is possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on record. In Lalit Kumar Sharma's case (supra) the acquittal was set aside even on the ground that the appellate Court has gone wrong in setting aside the order of acquittal on the re-appraisal of the available evidence. Further, in Dinanath Singh vs. State of Bihar (8), it has been held that where the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is reasonably possible, even if the High Court were to take a different view on the evidence, that would be no ground for reversing the order of acquittal. Having benefitted by the enlightments derived from the decisions cited above, though there are no curtailment on the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, rather such powers are as extensive as they are in appeal against conviction, but only rider is of giving proper considerations that too cautiously to matters (i) to (iv) quoted above after wringing out from the decision in Salim Zia Vs. State of U. P. (supra ). ;