Crl.A(J) 165/2004 - Gauhati High Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

State of U.P.; reported in 2012 CriLJ 3005. In this judgment also, the apex court has reiterated the same principles. The learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the decision of the Apex Court given in the case of Babu & Ors.– Vs- State of U.P. (AIR 1983 SC 308) to argue that acquittal of an accused gives a presumption of innocence and if two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused should be taken into consideration. The observations of their Lordships, borrowed from the case of U.P. State –v- Samman Dass (1972 CriLJ 487) are quoted below and we would certainly follow the legal principles as to when an order of acquittal should be interfered with. "There are, however, certain cardinal rules which have always to be kept in view in appeals against acquittal. Firstly, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which has to be kept in mind, especially when the accused has been acquitted by the court below; secondly, if two views of the matter are possible, a view favourable to the accused should be taken thirdly, in case of acquittal by the trial judge, the appellate court should take into account the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses; and fourthly, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The doubt should, however, be reasonable and should be such which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy-though unwittingly it may be-or is afraid of the logical consequences, if that benefit was not given." Criminal Appeal No.165(J)/04 Page 6 of 6
9. Now coming to the merit of the case, it appears that altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to establish the murder of one Hasen Ali at the hands of the appellants. 10. PW 1 has deposed that while he was purchasing medicine in a pharmacy he met PW 4, who told the witness crying that his brother Hasen Ali was killed in the market. Thereafter PW 1 visited the place of incidence and saw the dead body with cut wounds on head and abdomen etc and in his presence the police officer seized a pair of sandal, one bag containing a khukri, two handmade bombs, one shawl and one bicycle under Ext. 1. 11. PW 2 was the owner of a sweet-meet shop at Chapor market. According to him, the deceased was the President of Gaon Panchayat. The witness has further deposed that he was reported by PW 4 about the murder of Hasen Ali. This witness did not visit the place of murder. His testimony is only relevant to establish the presence of PW 4 at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. 12. PW 3 is the son of the deceased and he is also the informant of the case. This witness has deposed that he was informed about the assault upon his father by his uncle Sah Alam. PW 3 was also told about the names of five assailants and thereafter the written FIR (Ext 2) was submitted. The witness was cross-examined to elicit that he did not name any assailant before the Investigating Officer. Be that as it may, the witness has given incriminating evidence in the cross- Criminal Appeal No.165(J)/04 Page 7 of 7
Page 1 and 2: IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH
Page 3 and 4: accused persons took the plea of to
Page 5: shall be presumed to be innocent un
Page 9 and 10: against the accused persons by depo
Page 11 and 12: 17. PW 6 is the uncle of the deceas
Page 13 and 14: days ago from 160 Bighas of land of
Page 15 and 16: these witnesses had specifically na
Page 17 and 18: “accused persons”). Admittedly,
Page 19 and 20: 33. In the result, the appeal stand

Crl.A(J) 165/2004 - Gauhati High Court

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?