STATE Vs. AMEERUDDIN ALIAS AMEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.A No.14108/2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing leave to appeal and seeking condonation of 94 days delay. The respondent had been served, however, no reply to the application has been filed by the respondent.

(2.) The applicant has contended that on account of many factors e.g time was taken in procuring the certified copy of the judgment and thereafter in preparing the report and filing the appeal, delay was caused. The applicant has detailed as to who all had considered the case before opining filing of petition leading to delay of 94 days. According to the applicant in the facts and circumstances there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the petitioner seeking leave to appeal. The reasons stated in the application constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 94 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal. Therefore, the application is allowed and delay in filing petition for leave to appeal is condoned. Crl.L.P No.250/2009 The State has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 30th May, 2009 acquitting the respondent of charges under Section 302/404/411 of IPC and giving him benefit of doubt and setting him at liberty in Sessions Case No.21/2009 titled State v. Ameeruddin arising out of FIR No.195/2006 P.S Vivek Vihar under Sections 302/383/411 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) For grant of leave to State against an order of acquittal, it cannot be disputed that the High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusions and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial Court, if the findings are against the evidence or record or unsustainable or perverse. However, before reversing the findings of acquittal, the High Court must consider each ground on which the order of acquittal is based and should record its own reasons for accepting those grounds. This also cannot be disputed that in reversing the findings of acquittal the High Court has to keep in view the fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused which is rather fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour. Even if on, fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and perusal of the material on record, the High Court is of the opinion that another view is possible or which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be adopted and the view taken by the trial Court which had an advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court is not to be substituted by another view which may be reasonably possible in the opinion of the High Court. For this reliance can be placed on 2009(1) JCC 482=AIR 2009 SC 1242, Prem Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan; 2008 (3) JCC 1806, Syed Peda Aowlia v. the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad; Bhagwan Singh and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2002 (2) Supreme 567; AIR 1973 SC 2622 Shivaji Sababrao Babade & Anr v. State of Maharashtra; Ramesh Babu Lal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 4 Supreme 167; Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, 2000 (1) JCC (SC) 140. The Courts have held that 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 the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. With this settled law regarding the scope of setting aside the order of acquittal, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the Trial Court record especially the testimonies of the witnesses and the relevant documents. The allegation against the respondent is that he is a labourer and he committed the murder of Smt.Bhagwati Devi, a 75 year old lady by strangulation. The FIR was registered on the statement of Sh.Subhash Chander, son of the deceased residing at 504/12, Circular Road, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara which he made to the police at about 5.30 AM as the respondent had come to him and told him that his mother also known as Amma was not waking up.