Appellate Courts Must Bear In Mind There Is Prejudice In Favour Of Accused In Case Of Acquittal: Gujarat High Court

"Appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court."

The Appellant-State had filed the instant appeal u/s 378(1)(3) of CrPC against the judgement passed by the Sessions Judge for offences u/s 323, 504, 506(2), 143, 147 and 149 of IPC and Sec 3(i)(x) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

The Prosecution submitted that the Respondent-Accused had allegedly taken over the possession of the land and started a 'Kola' a country made machine for manufacturing jaggery. Owing to this, the Complainant and Respondents got into a scuffle and the Respondents uttered caste-based abuse. They also threatened the Complainant to death and beat him with fist and kick blows. Consequently, the FIR was filed.

The Appellant-State insisted that the Trial Court judge had erroneously not appreciated the evidence of the Prosecution whereas the Accused submitted that there was no error in the judgement.

Subsequent to hearing the parties, the High Court reiterated the limited nature of acquittal appeals and pointed out several fallacies in the Prosecution's submissions:

1. The complaint was filed after 11 days even when the Kola was started prior to the alleged incident. It was noted that there were 15-20 labourers working in the area. Nowhere in the original complaint was mentioned that when the incident had occurred that many people had gathered, and that the Complainant and his wife had escaped from the Accused.
2. The people who had gathered at the time of the incident had not been examined by the Prosecution.
3. The wife of the Complainant had stated that the Kola was running for the past 1 year and later stated that it was being run for 2 or 3 years. She also stated that the incident involved 3 persons. Yet, the complaint was filed against 6 years.
4. Even though it was alleged that the Complainant had been attacked, his injuries appeared to be simple. He had not mentioned the age of the injuries in his cross-examination.

Owing to several such consistencies, the High Court affirmed that the Trial Court had thoroughly examined all evidence and therefore, reached the right conclusion.

Case Title: STATE OF GUJARAT v/s RAJESHBHAI RAMUBHAI PATEL & 5 other(s)

Citaiton: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 371