PREMLATA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-respondent was tried for offences punishable under Ss. 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. After a detailed and rigorous trial, and upon a thorougha discussion of the evidence brought on record, the learned ACJM, Makrana vide its judgment dtd. 26/9/2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 320/2005, acquitted the respondent from all the charges.

(2.) The entire legal and factual matrix was again re-appreciated by the learned Appellate Court i.e. Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Parbatsar vide judgment dtd. 14/11/2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 135/2014 preferred by the petitioner. However, subjecting a person to further criminal proceedings despite concurrent findings of acquittal by two Courts is neither justified nor reasonable. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. Unless there is a manifest illegality, complete miscarriage of justice, or perversity in appreciation of evidence resulting in grave injustice, further appreciation of evidence to take a view contrary to what has already been taken by two Courts is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction. There is a concurrency in the judgment of two Courts, and after having a cursory look over it, I do not find any error of law or gross mis-appreciation of evidence warranting interference. No specific illegality or perversity has been pointed out by the petitioner so as to disturb the well-reasoned judgments of acquittal rendered by the Courts below.

(3.) It is nigh well settled that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of an accused and the same gets further fortification after his acquittal by a reasoned judgment of a Court of competent jurisdiction. The Court of appeal should be slow and should show reluctance in making interference in a well reasoned judgment of acquittal. It should be kept in mind that until and unless it is observed that the judgment of acquittal is a product of total non-consideration of the material brought on record or it is against any provision of law or is concluded upon mis-appreciation of evidence; the Appellate Court should not interfere in the finding reached by the Trial Court. If after re-appreciation of evidence, a stage comes where two views seem possible still the Court should tend to accept the view favourable to the accused. Recently Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its pronouncement in the matter of Mallappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka (Criminal Appeal No. 1162/2011 decided on 12/2/2024) had an occasion to expound common principles in respect of the issue involved in like cases while entertaining an appeal against acquittal; the relevant Para No. 36 is reproduced as under :--