ROHINI @ DOLLY Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment dated 30.4.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions case No. 196/2006 thereby acquitting the accused persons of the charged offence under Sections 498A/406/307/34 IPC. Arguing the present appeal Mr. A.K. Chowdhary, counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Court has discarded the clinching evidence of PW -2 Smt. Rohini(appellant/complainant), PW -1 Shri Sohan Lal Sharma (father of PW -2) and PW -10 Smt. Krishna Devi (mother of PW2) merely on the ground that they made material improvements and embellishments in their depositions before the Trial Court in comparison with their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Contention raised by counsel for the appellant is that the learned Trial Court has failed to categorically point out the alleged material improvements made by these witnesses in the impugned judgment. Counsel further argued that the learned Trial Court has also wrongly observed that the said witnesses did not disclose the specific dates on which the alleged demands of money and physical harassment was meted out to the appellant by the accused persons. Counsel also argued that the learned Trial Court has wrongly discarded the clinching evidence of PW -4, Shri Baldhari Yadav and PW -6, Shri Ram Niwas, who had fully corroborated the version of PW -2 on material points, despite the fact that they turned hostile later. Contention raised by counsel for the appellant is that PW -4, Shri Baldhari Yadav is an independent witness and was sitting in his pan shop when he saw the appellant, wet in kerosene oil, rushing out from her matrimonial home crying 'bachao bachao'. Counsel also submits that on the same lines PW -6, Ram Niwas, had also personally seen the appellant wet in kerosene oil and making such cries. Counsel also argued that the appellant was taken to Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan after a gap of 2 1/2 hours and in the MLC the attending doctor had observed smell of kerosene from the clothes of the appellant. Counsel also argued that merely because in the MLC of Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan, the appellant was not found to have sustained any external injuries that would not mean that the accused persons have not poured kerosene oil on her body. Counsel also argued that there was no reason for the learned Trial Court to have disbelieved the medical opinion given by the attending doctor of Garg Hospital which was proved on record as Exhibit PW -5/A. Counsel also submitted that the testimony of PW -5, Dr. S.S. Bhagat of Garg Hospital could not have been doubted merely because the appellant was earlier being treated in the same hospital.

(2.) BASED on these submissions counsel for the appellant urged that there was no reason for the learned Trial Court to have disbelieved the testimonies of the complainant, her parents supported by other independent witnesses i.e. PW - 4 and PW -6, which is further corroborated by the medical evidence, therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and perverse on the very face of it.

(3.) IT is a settled legal position that in an appeal against the order of acquittal, the High Court will interfere only where the order passed by the learned Trial Court is vitiated by manifest illegality or perversity or the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously. The Appellate Court should also bear in mind that with the acquittal of the accused persons by the learned Trial Court, the presumption of innocence of the accused persons has been given the legitimacy. It is also a settled legal position that where there is possibility of arriving at two different conclusions on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal arrived at by the Lower Court merely because the other possible view is a preferred view.