STATE Vs. JENUKURUBARA HARISHA ALIAS RAMESHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Addl. SPP at length and on merits. He has very vehemently submitted that the trail court has adopted an ultra-strict approach to the extent of discarding the prosecution evidence despite the fact that it was essentially acceptable. He relies on the fact that the complainant is an eye witness, that there is also an extra- judicial confession on record and furthermore that the recovery evidence is good enough. We have been required to therefore reappraise all the material that was before the trial court for purposes of deciding as to whether a conviction could reasonably be sustained on this basis, and after having done a thorough re-appraisal we find that the material falls short of the requisite quality to sustain a conviction. Also, the charge is a serious one i. e. murder and in order to sustain a conviction on this charge or even a slightly lesser charge it is the quality and quantum of the material which are both very essential.

(2.) ONE of the principles that the court has to adopt in an appeal against acquittal is to decide as to whether the view expressed by the learned Trial Judge, who is the most competent person to appreciate the evidence, is sustainable or not. In this case we find that the learned Trial Judge has done a meticulous analysis of the evidence virtually area by area, that he has thereafter posed the question as to whether all the material or that of it which ultimately passes the test of scrutiny, can be said to have established the charge and the ultimate finding is in the negative. We do concede that to some extent this is a borderline case and that the learned Addl. SPP did almost succeed in convincing us that the record justifies a conviction. What has ultimately titled the scales in favour of the accused is the fact that the basic principle viz. , that if two views are possible the one in favour of the accused will have to be accepted, has come to their assistance. Also we are duty bound to review if the reasoning and findings of the trial court are essential sustainable and therefore cannot be disturbed merely on the ground that some other view was possible. These are well defined principles of criminal law and having applied them we see no ground on which interference with the order of acquittal is permissible. The appeal fails on merits and stands dismissed.