High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 175/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE DR.(MRS.) I. SHAH JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
Vide Judgment and Order dated 07.05.2007, the learned Addl. Chief Judici al Magistrate, Kokrajhar, acquitted the Respondent No. 1, Sri Haren Das, from th e offence charged against him under Sections 341/323 I.P.C., in Case No. 6c/2005 . Aggrieved by the said Judgment and order, the appellant/ complainant has filed this appeal. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. A. K. Hussain, learned counsel for the complainant/ appellant, and Mr. J. C. Barman, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam. The complainant’s case, in brief, is that on 04.01.2005, at around 12 no 3. on, she along with others, went to forest near Salakati to collect firewood. The accused, who was the in-charge of Salakati Police Out Post, chased the complain ant and assaulted her. Out of fear, the complainant fled away and while running away, she lost her silver necklace and payal. The accused took away her dao and firewood to the said Out Post. After one hour, the complainant went to the Out P ost to bring back her articles where she was again assaulted by the accused, abo ve named. On 06.01.2005, the complainant lodged the complaint before the Court o f learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar. Cognizance was taken under Secti ons 341/323 IPC against the said accused. 4. During trial, 5(five) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecuti on side. On conclusion of trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused, as stated above. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the gro und of minor discrepancies, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the said accus ed. There was evidence that the complainant was beaten up by the accused for whi ch she sustained injuries on her body. There was incriminating material against the accused, under Section 323 IPC, to convict him but the learned Trial Court f ailed to appreciate the evidence on record, causing miscarriage of justice. 6. P.W.-1, Sabatan Bibi, the complainant, in her evidence, deposed that at around 11 am, she along with others, went to the forest to collect firewood. A p olice party from the police station, came to the jungle and drove them away and while running away, she lost her silver necklace and payal. Subsequently, she ca me to the police station to inform the police that she had lost her necklace and payal. However, she was beaten up by the accused by means of a wooden lathi. Sh e sustained injuries on her hands and waist. The incident of assault took place in front of the police station. P.W.-2, Sakina Bibi, took her to her house. On t he same day, she was taken to the hospital for treatment. In her cross-examinati on, she has stated that her husband carried her to the hospital on his bicycle. Thereafter, the Doctor issued a prescription. 7. The prescription annexed with the complaint petition shows that it was i ssued on 06.01.2005 whereas the alleged incident took place on 04.01.2005. There is nothing on the prescription to ascertain as to whether the victim complainan t sustained any injury or not. She was advised to take one tablet of nemosalide and one injection of T.T.. 8. P.W.-2 Sakina Bibi, deposed that she along with P.W.-1 and 8/9 others, w ent to forest to collect firewood and they were driven away by the police staff. After one hour, P.W.-1 asked her to accompany her to police station. P.W.-2 enq uired about the dao. P.W.-1 also enquired about her dao. Thereafter, P.W.-1 was assaulted by the accused. She with the help of 3 others, removed the victim to t he hospital where she was treated. In her cross-examination, she has stated that the victim sustained 10-12 numbers of injuries and 5 Nos. of injections were pu shed on the victim by the Doctor. 9. P.W.-3 Md. Samesh @ Home Sheikh, stated that he saw the complainant ran out from the jungle and entered into the police station. There was an altercatio n between the complainant and the accused. Thereafter, she was assaulted. P.W.-3 is a rickshaw puller. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the complain ant abused the accused in filthy language. The accused then asked the complainan t why she used filthy language. Thereafter, she was assaulted. 10. It appears from the evidence of PW.-3 that he is a ’chance witness’. 11. P.W.-4, Rahima Bib,i deposed that while she went into the jungle along w ith P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, the accused chased them to assault. Thereafter, they came to the police station to take back their dao and axe. When they asked about the dao and axe, the accused assaulted the complainant by means of a lathi. The com plainant sustained injuries on her knee and leg. In her cross-examination, she a dmitted that she did not enter into the police station. The accused came out of the police station and then assaulted the complainant. Seeing the incident, she fled away. 12. tion of the complainant. P.W.-5, petition writer, wrote the complaint petition as per the instruc 13. The learned Trial Court while analysing the evidence adduced by the comp lainant and witnesses, observed that P.W.-1 deposed that the occurrence took pla ce at 11 am. That means, she entered into the forest at 11 am and after one hour , she went to the police station whereas P.W.-3 saw the complainant entering int o the police station from jungle at 3 pm. P.W.-1 stated that she told the police about her silver necklace and payal which she lost in the jungle whereas P.W.-4 stated that the complainant came to the police Out Post and she asked about her dao and axe. That apart, the medical certificate was not produced by the compla inant. The husband of the complainant who carried her to the hospital, was also not examined. The complainant stated that her husband carried her to the hospita l on his bicycle whereas P.W.-2 stated that she along with others, carried her f rom the police Out Post to the Doctor. The incident occurred on 04.01.2005 and t he Doctor issued the medical prescription on 06.01.2005. There is nothing on rec ord to show that on 04.01.2005, the complainant was examined by the Doctor. In the cited case of State of Manipur -vs- Keisham Mani Singh & 14. Ors., reported in 2007(2) GLT 478, this Court, in Paragraph No. 11, has observed , as under : (cid:28)11. Generally, order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because of the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthen by acquitta l. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the v iew which is favourable to the accused shall be adopted. The Apex Court in State of Punjab -vs- Phola Singh & anr.:(2003) 11 SCC 58 held that there is no embarg o 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 becaus e of the presumption of innocence is further strengthen by acquittal. The Apex C ourt had also taken the similar view in Bihari Nath Goswami -vs- Shiv Kumar Sing h & Ors.:(2004) 9 SCC 186. The Apex Court in Bihari Nath Goswami(supra) held tha t in a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the appell ate court to appreciate the evidence even where the accused had been acquitted f or the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed offence or not. In State of Rajasthan -vs- Bhanwar Singh & Ors.:(2004) 10 SCC 7 09, the conviction of the accused by the trial court had been set aside by the H igh Court as the High Court doubted the prosecution case as it was of the view t hat defence version may be reasonably possible. In appeals against the judgment of the High Court for acquittal, the Apex Court held that if the two views were possible, the order of acquittal should not be interfered with as it well settle d that if the two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere w ith the order of the acquittal. (cid:29) 15. In this case also, there are no compelling and substantial reaso ns for interfering with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. 16. Send down the LCRs forthwith. JUDGE Bikash