STATE OF ASSAM Vs. ROHINI KANTA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Goalpara, Dhubri in Sessions Case No. 68(D)/81 dated 16-7-82 acquitting all the accused persons from the various charges including one under section 302 I.P C. The law with regard to the limitation of the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal is one of the age long settled law. In very many occasions, the Supreme Court had laid down the principles and the limitations of the High Court to interfere with an appeal against acquittal. The principles as laid down by the Supreme Court and followed by all the Courts are on the basic principle that if two reasonable views are possible in arriving at a decision in the case of an appeal against acquittal the view which could be inclined with the conclusion indicating the acquittal of the accused, should be accepted. In the decision of Tota SinghT their Lordships have held that the jurisdiction of the appellate Court in dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal is circumscribed by the limitation that no interference is to be made with the order of acquittal unless the approach made by the lower Court to the consideration of the evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest illegality or the conclusion recorded by the Court below is such which could not have been possibly arrived at by any Court acting reasonably and Judiciously and is, therefore, liable to be characterized as perverse. The limitation is put to the appellate Court in dealing with such nature of the case for interference with the order of an acquittal to the effect that if it is of the opinion that the view taken by the Court on its consideration of the evidence is merely erroneous, the appellate Court should not interfere with such an order of acquittal if a reverse conclusion on the basis of the evidence is also possible.

(2.) The facts of the case, which gave rise to this appeal against the order of acquittal may be stated herein below.

(3.) The prosecution case started on the basis of an ejlhar lodged by P.W. 3 Dhirendra Nath Rai to the Officer-in-charge, Golaghat Police Station on 28th March, 1978 to the effect that on the same day at about 8.30 a.m., while the complainant along with his father Sri Upen Rai, his younger brother Dasanan Rai, and his uncle Debendra Nath (since deceased) were harvesting wheat in the field und measuring about 4 Kathas out of 2 Bighas of land at Birandi, under the possession and title of Rohini Kanta Rai, the accused he numbering about 14 including the accused Rohini Kanta Rai and Mahim having armed with stones and khapar, etc. assaulted them by pelting stones. When they ran away out of fear, the accused Mohim came running with a Khapar in his hand from the opposite side and gave it to accused Rohini who assaulted is the deceased Debendra with that Khapar causing him the chest injuries as a result of do which Debendra died on the spot. He was eve thereafter taken to the compound of Upendra Nath Rai. The matter was informed to P.W. 10- Kabir Chandra Rai Pradani who also rushed to the Police Station after one and half sit hours. The police came for investigation. It was revealed in course of investigation as regards the commission offence by the accused as and to the said effect and in consultation with the officer-in-charge, the F.I.R. was lodged by P. W. 3. Thus the investigation started against all the accused persons and consequently, they , had to face a trial in the Court of Sessions. It may be noted here that though the occurrence took place on 28-3-78, all the accused p surrendered on 9-4-78 and they were produced by the police officer in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate on 10.4.78 with a prayer for remand. While the accused were produced for trial, the learned Sessions Judge framed a common charge against all the accused under section 148 I.P.C. The charge framed against the accused persons were explained and they pleaded not guilty. That apart, a separate charge was framed against the accused Mohim Chandra Roy under sections 302/114 I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty. As regards the accused Rohini Kanra Rai, he was also charged separately under section 302 I.P.C. for causing the death of Debendra Nath Rai by piercing a Khapar in his chest. The accused Rohini Kanta Rai also pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution led the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence committed by them. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses including the outopsy surgeon and the Investigating Officer. All the accused numbering 14, were examined by the learned trial Court. Their statements were recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. The accused to him has taken the plea of alibi on the around that prior to the date of occurrence, he was not in the village where the occurrence took place, but was admitted in M.J.N. Hospital, Cooch Behar for treatment and was released only on 1-4-78. From the statement, it appears that the accused Rohini took ,the plea of alibi for which the burden lies on him to substantiate the plea. But the burden is not so onerous as in the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond shadow of doubt. The accused can discharge the burden even from the mouths of the prosecution witnesses and from official record, provided, the court can place reliance on those evidence. However, the learned trial Court, after consideration of the evidence on record and on proper scrutiny of the testimony of each and every witness, accepted the evidence of P.W. 9 as regards the plea of alibi of the accused Rohini. The learned trial Court conclusively held that the accused Rohini could prove the plea of alibi and in that situation the trial Court further held that the evidence of the witnesses including those stated to be eyewitnesses could not be relied upon as the prosecution placed Rohini as the main author of the crime. The learned trial Court, therefore, held that the story of the prosecution was false and as such acquitted all the accused persons of the charges. This is how the State has approached this Court with this appeal against acquittal. A leave was prayed for. This Court granted leave by the order dated 16-12-82 to the State and admitted the appeal only against the accused Rohini and Mohim Chandra Rai.