Surender Sharma @ Popi vs Deepak Saini & Ors.

Manisha Batra, J.

The instant revision petition preferred against the judgment dated 25.08.2014 passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.25 of 2014 titled as Surender Sharma @ Popi Vs. Deepak Saini and others in case arising out of FIR No.422 dated 07.08.2004 registered under Sections 324, 323, 506, 34 of IPC at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon (now Gurugram), whereby the judgment of acquittal of respondents-accused dated 07.04.2014 as pronounced by the Learned Trial Court had been affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the present petitioner-complainant on 07.08.2004, alleging therein that on the same evening, he was present in his building material supply shop, when a girl reached there and told the complainant that the accused Sonu @ Shekhar, who was having strained relations with him due to business rivalry, was calling him at his shop. The complainant did not respond to the same. Some time thereafter, accused Sonu @ Shekhar accompanied by his brother Pardeep, Deepak and Tinku reached at his shop. Accused Sonu @ Shekhar was carrying a knife. He made an exhortation to teach a lesson to the complainant and then the accused Pardeep, Deepak and Tinku caught-hold of him, whereas the accused Sonu @ Shekhar struck a blow with knife on his head. Accused Ram Kishore Saini also reached there in the meanwhile and then all of them assaulted him by giving fist blows and kicks. He was rescued by some persons, who reached there and then the assailants left the spot, while extending threats to the complainant. He was rushed to the hospital and was medico-legally examined. A case under Section 324 and 506 of IPC was registered. Investigation proceedings were initiated. The accused were arrested, during the course of investigation and were subsequently released on bail.

Copies of challan were supplied to the respondents-accused free of cost. On finding a prima facie case, they were charge-sheeted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 506 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 08 witnesses and, thereafter, its evidence was closed.

Statements of the respondents-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they abjured their guilt and claimed innocence in defence evidence, one document was tendered by them.

After hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides and appraising the evidence produced on record, the Learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 07.04.2014 acquitted the accused of the charges as framed against them by holding that accused Deepak Saini, Tinku @ Sunil, Pardeep Kumar and Ram Kishore of the charges framed against them by holding that the prosecution had failed to its case beyond doubt. The accused Sonu @ Shekhar was declared a proclaimed offender.

Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of acquittal, the petitioner-complainant filed the aforementioned appeal before the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, which had been dismissed by order dated 25.08.2014.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned judgment of acquittal as passed by the Learned Trial Court and affirmed by Learned Sessions Judge are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be set aside. The prosecution had produced overwhelming evidence on record to prove the allegations as levelled in the FIR. The testimonies of the petitioner and another eye-witness Satnarayan inspired full confidence to prove the allegations as levelled against the respondents-accused. The Learned Trial Court did not apply its judicious mind, while recording the findings of acquittal. A cryptic and non-speaking order had been passed. Even, the learned Appellate Court had not considered the evidence as produced on record in a proper perspective. The findings as given by both the Courts below are perverse and, therefore, do not deserve to be sustained. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be accepted, impugned judgments are liable to be set aside and the respondents No.1 to 4 are liable to be held guilty and convicted.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order as passed by the Learned Trial Court and as affirmed by the Learned Appellate Court. The orders so passed are well-reasoned and have been passed after due appreciation of the evidence produced on record. It is, therefore, urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

Learned State counsel has not resisted the contentions as raised by the petitioner.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.

Before proceeding further, this Court would like to discuss that the petitioner has approached this Court against the concurrent findings of acquittal of respondents No.1 to 4 as recorded by the Learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. It is well settled proposition of law that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent Court. The accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but re-enforced, re-affirmed and strengthened. It is also well-settled that while considering the contentions against the order of acquittal, the Appellate Court/Revisional Court is required to seek an answer to question, whether the findings of the Trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous and demonstratbly unsustainable. If such answers to the said question is found to be negative, the order of acquittal should not be disturbed.

It is also well settled proposition of law that the Appellate Court has power to review, re-appreciate and re-consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, while exercising the powers in a revision petition, the revisional Court is to bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the findings of acquittal should not be disturbed. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Mahendra Partap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2009 (11) SCC 334.

Keeping the above-mentioned principles of law in mind, it has to be considered as to whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed or not? The case as set up by the complainant-petitioner was that on 07.08.2014, respondents No.1 to 4 accompanied by co-accused Sonu @ Shekhar (since declared a proclaimed offender) had assaulted him. The accused Sonu @ Shekhar had struck blows with knife on his person, whereas the respondents had caught-hold of him and then given kicks and fist blows to him. The Learned Trial Court had observed that apart from an injury opined to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon on the head of the petitioner, no other injury was found on the person of the petitioner as per the medical evidence. It was also observed that the testimonies of the complainant and the eye-witness who was none other than the partner of the petitioner and hence was not an independent witness, were not inspiring confidence for proving the guilt of the respondents. The Court of Learned Sessions Judge had also discussed that the testimonies of the material witnesses i.e. of petitioner and eye-witness, did not re-concile with the medical evidence. It was also observed that relations between the petitioner and respondents No.1 to 4 were inimical because of business rivalry and hence, there could also be a motive on the part of the petitioner to implicate them falsely. On going through the entire material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no error had been committed by the Learned Trial Court in acquitting the respondents No.1 to 4 and it had rightly appreciated the evidence produced on record. The findings given by the Learned Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the Learned Trial Court are also well-reasoned and do not warrant any interference while exercising powers of this Court as a revisional Court. Accordingly, finding no perversity or illegality in the findings so recorded and no compelling reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, this Court finds that no ground has been made out to allow the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

Since the main petition has been dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.