STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAJBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar in Sessions Case No.86 of 2004 by which accused-respondent Rajbir has been acquitted of offence under Section 307 IPC.

(2.) The power of the court to grant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal is to be exercised in a situation where the manner of appreciation of evidence by learned trial court is wholly unacceptable and such appreciation has led to conclusions which are ex facie erroneous or opposed to the weight of the evidence on record. Though there is no legal bar, the High Court normally would not supplant its views in place of the trial court while considering an appeal against acquittal. It is the aforesaid settled parameters of law that will have to be applied to the present case.

(3.) In the present case, neither in the statement (Ex.PA) made by the complainant nor in the FIR (Ex.P13), the name of Rajbir was mentioned as one of the persons present at the time and place of the alleged occurrence. There is material to show that accused-Rajbir belongs to the same village as the complainant and was known to the family members of the complainant. The learned trial court, therefore, held that if Rajbir had been present at the time and place of occurrence his name would have certainly been mentioned by the complainant. Apart from the above, though the allegation against the accused-respondent is of causing injury with a pistol, the learned trial court has recorded the finding that no pistol was recovered from the possession of accused-Rajbir. In fact, no attempt was made by the investigating officer to recover the said pistol from the accused. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the learned trial court thought it appropriate to hold that the presence of accused Rajbir at the time and place of occurrence has not been established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.