CHINNAPULLAI ALIAS BAGURE GOUNDER Vs. MUNIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of the acquittal of the accused who had been tried for alleged offences under Sections 147, 447, 427 and 379 I. P. C.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case is that the complainant, p. W. 1 filed a private complaint against the accused alleging that on 26. 02. 1996, the accused cut and carried away the sugarcane crops raised by him. On behalf of the complainant, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 were examined and Ex. P1 to ex. P. 10 were marked. On behalf of the accused, D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 were examined and Ex. D1 and Ex. D2 were marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 379 I. P. C. the accused claimed that they were in possession of the property and that they alone planted the sugarcane crops. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palacode came to the conclusion that the offences alleged against the accused are not proved and therefore acquitted them. Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) IN 2002-C-L. W. (Crl.) 513, the Supreme Court held as follows: "15. That apart, there should have been strong and good reasons for the High Court for converting an order of acquittal into one of conviction. The legal position on that score has been stated by this Court time and again. Suffice it to reproduce what is stated by the court in the decision of this Court in Dhanna V s. State of M. P. {1996 (10) SCC 79}. "though the Code does not make any distinction between an appeal from acquittal and an appeal from conviction so far as powers of the appellate court are concerned, certain unwritten rules of adjudication have consistently been followed by Judges while dealing with appeals against acquittal. No doubt, the High Court has full power to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion whether the appeal is against conviction or acquittal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the appellate court has to bear in mind: first, that there is a general presumption in favour of the innocence of the person accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal. The second is, every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when the trial court acquitted him, he would retain that benefit in the appellate court also. Thus, the appellate court in appeals against acquittals has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record, that the order of acquittal is liable to be interfered with or disturbed. "" IN this case also, sufficient reasons have been given as to why the accused are acquitted.