VORA MOHMADHUSEN FIDAHUSEN Vs. DOSHI TALAKCHAND DURLABHDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This acquittal appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 30th April 1580 rendered in Criminal Case No. 737 of 1979 passed by the learned J. M. F. C. Mahuva wherein three accused persons namely: (i) Doshi Talakchand Durlabhdas; (ii) Doshi Jethalal Durlabhdas and (iii) Doshi Himatlal Gulabchand who came to be tried for offences punishable under Sec. 352 504 506 of I.P.C. were acquitted. ... ... ... ...

(2.) Mr. D. K. Trivedi learned Addl. P. P. for the State submitted that the Impugned order of equities is illegal being contrary to the acceptable and reliable evidence of two prosecution witnesses namely (i) P. W. 1 Mohmadhussein Fidahussein Ex. 15 and (ii) P.W. 2 Taherali Gulamali Ex. 16. In order to make good the aforesaid submission the learned Addl. P. P. has taken me through the evidence of the said two prosecution witnesses as well as reasons for acquittal given by the trial Court in its judgment.

(3.) Having carefully gone through the entire material on the record of the case I am satisfied to hold that the view by the trial Court in reaching the ultimate conclusion of acquittal is absolutely legal and proper and warrants no interference at all particularly in view of the strained relations between the complainant and the accused it is not advisable to blindly accept an uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witnesses as a gospel truth. Taking the allegations in the complaint as will as in the evidence before the Court against the accused on its face value that at its best remains at the stage of may be true and/or may not be true in absences of any corroboration forthcoming from an independent source. Under such circumstances the accused would be reasonably entitled to the benefit of doubt which the trial Court has rightly given. Further I cannot afford to be oblivious to the fact that the appeal I am dealing with is an acquittal appeal and that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove I need not disregard the Rule of judicial prudence which it on going through the evidence on record if the other view of convicting the accused was possible then even the High Court should not lightly interfere with such finding of acquittal unless it is proved to be perverse. So far as the powers of the High Court in acquittal appeals are concerned the position regarding the same by now is well defined crystallized and settled by plethora of judgments by the Honble Supreme Court and to quote one such out of many is a case of Awadesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1988 SC 1158 the guiding principle underlying the same is reproduced as under: