IN ACQA-153-2015 v. Vijay Kumar Kaser

learned trial Court has acquitted all the accused/respondents No.01 to 03 herein for offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Facts of the case, in brief: (2) According to the case of the prosecution, on 13.10.2008 between 22:15 hours to 22:30 hours, at Gali No.6, Deepak Nagar, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Mohannagar, District Durg (CG), the accused/respondents No.01 to 03 firstly shared common intention with each other of killing Satwant Singh @ Banti (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) and, thereafter, in furtherance thereof, accused/respondents No.02 & 03 herein caught hold of the deceased and accused/respondent No.01 herein caused stab injury to the deceased by means of knife on his abdomen, due to which, the deceased firstly suffered grievous injuries and died on the way to the hospital. It is also the case of the prosecution that one- Abhishek Gupta was also involved in the crime in question alongwith the accused persons herein, but he remained absconded during the trial. In the present case, firstly, zero numbered merg intimation was registered by the police vide Ex.P/10 and thereafter Page No.3 of 15 IN ACQA-153-2015 numbered merg was registered vide Ex.P/11 by SI- Vinod Kumar Singh (PW-10) on 14.10.2008. Thereafter, on 13.10.2008, on the basis of written report (Ex.P/19) lodged by Khalvinder Singh (PW-12) [brother-in-law of the deceased], FIR vide Ex.P/15 was registered by the police for offence under Sections 307/34 of IPC against the accused/respondents No.01 to 03 herein alongwith absconded accused- Abhishek Gupta and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC was issued vide Ex.P/06 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/07. However, when the deceased was brought dead to the hospital certificate to that effect was issued vide Ex.P/08 by Dr. Vivek Sinha (PW-09) and intimation of the same was also sent to the police vide Ex.P/09 and, upon which, offence under Section 302/34 of IPC was registered against the accused persons. (3) Thereafter, the dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Anil Agrawal (PW-04) and, according to PM report (Ex.P/03) the cause of death of the deceased is cardio-respiratory failure as a result of hemorrhagic and neurogenic shock due to injury over abdomen and nature of death is homicidal. The accused-respondents herein were arrested vide Ex.P/13, Ex.P/17 & Ex.P/18 respectively. Further, memorandum statement of the accused- Vijay Kumar Kaser (A-1) was recorded vide Ex.P/04 and, pursuant to which, one knife has been seized. Though, as per final report (Ex.D/15) it is mentioned that the seized Page No.4 of 15 IN ACQA-153-2015 articles were sent for chemical examination, but no FSL report has been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondent No.1 for offence under Section 302 of IPC and against the accused-respondent No.02 to 03 for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC, in the competent court of criminal jurisdiction and, ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. (4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents, whereas the accused persons in support of their defence, have examined 01 witness and exhibited 14 document. (5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to acquit all the accused/respondents No.01 to 03 herein for offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC vide impugned judgment dated 29.03.2014, against which, this acquittal appeal has been preferred before this Court. Submissions of parties: (6) Mr. R.S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State would submit that the Page No.5 of 15 IN ACQA-153-2015 learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused persons, as there are ample evidence available on record to connect them with the offences in question in shape of direct testimony of eye-witness, namely, Bhupendra Singh @ Goldi (PW- 02), Ranjay Singh (PW-05), Kundan Singh (PW-06) and Rakesh Rajput (PW-07). The learned trial Court has committed grave legal error while disbelieving the testimonies of these eye-witnesses, which is contrary to the evidence available on record by recording findings which are perverse and contrary to the record. Hence, in exercise of appellate power, the acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant-State deserves to be allowed and, further, the accused persons (respondents No.01 to 03) are liable to be punished for the offences in question. (7) Per-contra, Mr. Aman Pandey and Ms. Anuja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the acquitted accused persons (A-1 to A-03) by rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand 1 jointly submit that the scope of interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal is extremely limited. They further submits that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, specially the so called eye-witnesses, namely, Bhupendra Singh @ Goldi (PW-02), Ranjay Singh (PW-05), Kundan Singh (PW-06) and Rakesh Rajput (PW-07) are not reliable and trustworthy and there are various 1 2025 INSC 114 Page No.6 of 15 IN ACQA-153-2015 contradiction and omissions in their statements. Even otherwise, nothing incriminating has been seized from the exclusive possession of any the acquitted accused/respondents. Forensic evidence is also not available in the present case to hold the accused persons herein guilty for the offences in question. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting all the accused persons are well merited and, no interference by this Court is called for in it. Hence, the acquittal appeal preferred by the appellant-State is liable to be dismissed. (8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. Discussion and analysis: (9) At the very outset, we would firstly consider the scope of interference in an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, for which, it would be profitable to notice the relevant principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and another (supra), whereby in Para-11 & 12 it has been held that the High Court should interfere in the order of acquittal, if the same suffers from perversity and is based on misreading of material evidence etc. and observed as under: “11. Recently, in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Page No.7 of 15 IN ACQA-153-2015 Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a Member (B.R. Gavai, J.) had an occasion to consider the legal position with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal. It was observed thus: “38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the principles laid down by this Court governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of the accused recorded by the trial court.