STATE Vs. SANJEEV BHEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. M.A. No. 2545/2011 (condonation of delay) For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 140 days in filing of this petition is condoned. Application disposed of. CRL. M.A. No. 2544/2011 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 5th June, 2010 passed by the Trial Court, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 363/366/376 IPC.

(2.) AS per the prosecution, respondent had taken away the prosecutrix aged about 15 years with him, after enticing her, to his village in the State of Orissa on 26 th August, 2008. He kept the prosecutrix with him from 26th August, 2008 till 7th September, 2008 when he was apprehended by the police. During this period, he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent.

(3.) IT is well settled that an order of acquittal should not be interfered with lightly or merely because one other view is possible. With the passing of an order of acquittal, presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened and the findings of the Trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence could be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. The High Court would not be justified to interfere with an order of acquittal merely because it feels that sitting as a Trial Court it would have proceeded to record a conviction. This is no more res integra that unless the conclusions of the court drawn on the evidence on record are unreasonable, perverse or unsustainable, the High Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal. 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.