STATE OF ORISSA Vs. ISWAR PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State in this appeal has called in question the order of acquittal passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Bargarh in Sessions Case Nos. 237/15 of 1994 acquitting the Respondent of the charges under Sections 307/427/149 I.P.C. Facts necessary for disposal of the above appeal run as under:

(2.) DURING trial, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses when the defence examined none despite of the opportunity. Besides the above, the prosecution proved the F.I.R. as Ext. 1, medical examination reports of those injured persons besides proving other documents. The Trial Court upon evaluation of evidence & on appreciation of the same has first come to conclusion that the evidence is not there on record to establish the fact that on the relevant date & time, the Respondents are in anywhere responsible for causing damage to the crops on the land in question by engaging cattle etc. Next, it has concluded that the prosecution case that the Respondents damaged the property of P.W. 1 has also not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, genesis of the occurrence has been doubted by the Trial Court. Then coming to the question of assault upon the members of the prosecution party, the Trial Court has first held that the Respondents have not caused injury to P.W. 3 as the same has not been established beyond reasonable doubt through clear, cogent & acceptable evidence & also their roles causing injury upon others as alleged by the prosecution. With such findings, the order of acquittal has been recorded.

(3.) THE settled position of law regarding the powers to be exercised by High Court in an appeal against the order of acquittal is that while High Court has full powers to appreciate the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based & to act on its own thereof, it will not do so lightly & will be slow to reverse an acquittal, except for strong & compelling reasons when it differs from that of the Trial Court. The paramount consideration in the matter is to avoid miscarriage of justice. Of course where two views are possible & the Trial Court has taken a reasonable view & acquitted the accused, the High Court in appeal cannot interfere with such finding but when there is perverse finding based on erroneous appreciation of evidence & a serious miscarriage of justice has been caused, the High Court has ample power to reverse that finding.