THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. BABURAO SADASHIO MHASKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 15th May, 2002, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldana, in Regular Criminal Case No. 22 of 2000, by which, an order of acquittal of respondent of offence punishable under Section 435, Indian Penal Code, was recorded by learned Trial Judge, the present appeal was filed by the State of Maharashtra.

(2.) In support of the appeal, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Mr. Mirza vehemently submitted that the impugned Judgment and order recorded by the Trial Judge is perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, ignoring the evidence even of the independent witnesses. He submitted that the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge for recording the order of acquittal are fanciful and, therefore, the order of acquittal is required to be reversed. Counsel for both the parties took me through the evidence of Bajirao Jivghale [PW 4], Gajanan Rathod [PW 5] and Anil Ghule [PW 6], so also the cross-examination of these witnesses.

(3.) Per contra, learned Adv. Mr. Khandewale for the respondentaccused supported the impugned Judgment and Order and submitted that in the light of the decision in the case of Darshanssingh Vs. State of Punjab, 2010 2 SCC 333, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused having an order of acquittal in his favour and, therefore, in the Appeal against Acquittal, the High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal. At any rate, according to him, the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view over the evidence and, therefore, no interference is required in the present appeal filed by the State. He further submitted that cross-examination of Anil Ghule [PW 6] clearly shows that the driver Gajanan Rathod [PW 5] could not have looked back to see the accused-respondent setting the cotton on fire in the tractor, nay it was impossible to see the respondent setting fire, looking at the height of the cotton that was stored in the tractor, namely 25-30 feet. He, therefore, submitted that the Trial Judge recorded the finding of acquittal on the preponderance of probabilities, so also on the anvil of the principles regarding benefit of doubt which is to be extended to the accused. This Court, therefore, need not interfere with the order of acquittal in the light of those principles. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of appeal.