Merely because the Session’s Court was entitled to take a different view it was not sufficient for him to topple the judgment of the Trial Court: High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
Appellate Court has the power to review the evidence in appeal against acquittal and even to reappreciate the entire evidence. It can consider both facts as well as law. However, there has to be some substantial and compelling reason for the Appellate Court for holding the view of the Trial Court as wrong. A single-judge bench comprising of Justice S. Patil adjudicating the matter of Baban Ramchandra Godge And Ors v. The State Of Maharastra( CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 28 OF 2011) dealt with the issue of whether the sentence passed by the Session’s court is correct or not.
In the present case, a revision petition is filed u/s 397 and 401 of the CrPC by the original accused who were acquitted by the Trial Court but by the impugned judgment and order of conviction in an Appeal against acquittal whereby they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 452 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in addition to pay fine of Rs. 200/- on each count.
According to the complainant’s FIR, the complainant and his brother went to fetch milk in their motorcycle and the accused accosted them and threatened to withdraw the complaint filed against them. On refusal, they assaulted the brother of the complainant and caused inuries. Further, they ransacked the articles and molested one of the witnesses of the cases
The defence totally denied these allegations and stated that these are false allegations. Also, the defendant stated that the complainant’s brother in fact molested a woman from the accused’s family and was therefore implicated in a Crime and the accused are being implicated with an ulterior motive. The Accused vehemently submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove their case. The court gave sufficient and cogent reasons pointing out to the discrepancies and shortcomings in the prosecution evidence. Merely because another view was possible the Sessions Court ought not to have substituted its view in place of the one expressed by the Trial Court which was well-founded. It is submitted that merely because the Trial Court had erred in some respect and has at times been even perverse was not sufficient for the Sessions Court to reverse the acquittal. The ultimate conclusion drawn by the Trial Court was unassailable and should not have been interfered with while exercising a limited jurisdiction. Also, it was pointed out that Session’s court has blatantly overlooked the contradictions and inconsistencies as well as improbabilities referred to and pointed out by the Trial court.
The Complainant submitted that the observations and conclusions of the Trial Court were perverse and arbitrary.
The court after hearing into the submissions of both the parties observed that Appellate Court has the power to review the evidence in appeal against acquittal and even to reappreciate the entire evidence. It can consider both facts as well as law. However, there has to be some substantial and compelling reason for the Appellate Court for holding the view of the Trial Court as wrong. The Session’s court did resort to a reappreciation of the evidence which he was entitled to but has either overlooked the discrepancies pointed out by the Trial Court or has not noticed the reasoning resorted to by it. It was confirmed by the Trial court that there was no unlawful assembly and the assault was not carried out in furtherance of any common object. While appreciating the evidence and pointing out the perversity in the reasoning assigned by the Trial Court he correctly observed that Shiladidi (P.W.1) and Rajesh (P.W.2) had described the latter having received an injury to head but their such description being that of laymen, and when Dr. Agrawal (P.W. 4) in his Injury certificate (Exh. 40) has stated that Rajesh (P.W. 2) had sustained couple of injuries on the forehead which is nothing but a part of head as commonly understood, the learned Judge of the Trial Court ought to have borne in mind this fact which he had miserably failed. Therefore to this extent I do not find any perversity or illegality in the conclusion drawn by the Sessions Court.
As regards to the Second incident the Sessions Court has clearly overlooked the fact that Komal (P.W. 7) herself has not attributed the act of pulling of her Odhani to any specific individual accused. Whereas, Nayana (P.W. 3) attributes it to accused Baban. Such a discrepancy pointed out by the Trial Court has not at all been considered by the learned Judge of the Sessions Court. It was indeed a material discrepancy pointed out by the Trial Court which ought to have been considered and reappreciated in appeal against acquittal.
All these aforementioned facts and circumstances would clearly indicate that assuming that another view was possible to be taken, the learned Judge of the Sessions Court was not entitled to reverse the judgment of acquittal returned by the Trial Court with the plausible reasoning.