Gujarat High Court: Appellate Court Should Not Interfere With Trial Court’s Acquittal Order Merely Because Two Views Are possible

The Gujarat High Court in the case State of Gujarat v. Koli Arjan SamatVaderah& 3 other(s), wherein the bench comprising of Justice Rajendra M.Sareen observed and has confirmed the acquittal of the accused person charged under section 498(A), section 306, section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It has been reiterated by the court when two views are possible, the judgment and order of acquittal which being passed by the trial Court should not be interfered with by the Appellate Court unless there being special reasons.
Therefore, an appeal was also being filed by the state under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 against the acquittal passed by the trial court.
In the present case, the daughter of the complainant had allegedly committed suicide by jumping into the well with her minor daughter on account of physical and mental harassment from the respondents accused. Thus, the trial court acquitted the respondents accused, aggrieved with the same, the appeal has been preferred by the State to the High Court.
It has been contended by the counsel appearing for the State that the trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The counsel, advocate Mr.Raiyani,submitted appearing for the respondent accused submitted before the court that the learned trial Judge has, after due and proper appreciation and evaluation of the evidence on record, the same has o come to the conclusion and has acquitted the accused, which being just and proper and the prosecution has also not been able to establish that the actual incident of cruelty which has been taken place.
The court after hearing advocates of respective parties, the court while considering the material on record the High Court dismissed the appeal by confirming the acquittal.
The High Court in the case observed that the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that when the accused having secured his acquittal, further, the presumption of his innocence is reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
Further, it has also been held by the court that there being nothing on record to show that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide and there were contradictions in the deposition of the complainant. On revaluation of evidence on record, as well as the court considered the settled legal position, it transpires that the prosecution has failed to prove the case which being against the accused beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the ingredients of the offence alleged are not fulfilled.