PATNA, India, Sept. 3 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Aug. 3:

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- V, Katihar in Sessions Case No. 254/2013, arising out of Mansahi P.S. Case No. 64/2012, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections 363, 366A and 364 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Vide order dated 01.04.2024, notices were issued to the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3, upon which they appeared by filing Vakalatnama through learned Advocate, Mr Awnish Kumar.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 10.08.2012 at 10:00 a.m., the daughter of the informant along with her sister was going towards her farm and, after covering some distance, she felt nature's call. She told her younger sister to bring water from her home. When, after 10 minutes, her sister returned with a vessel of water, she did not found her sister. After searching her sister for some time, she returned home and provided information to her family members. They searched for the victim girl but she was not traced. The informant came to know that Tabrej (Respondent No. 2), Md. Sayeed (Respondent No. 3), Md. Sakim, Md. Manirul, Md. Nizam, Md. Matin and Md. Rafique have kidnapped her minor daughter and her daughter has been kept hidden with Md. Tabrej. The informant was apprehensive that the accused persons may kill her daughter.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Mansahi P.S. Case No. 64/2012 was instituted under Sections 363, 366A and 364 of Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up by the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses viz. PW1 Reshmi Khatoon, PW2 Md. Samsul Haque, PW3 Md. Samir, PW4 Subed Ali and PW5 Julekha Khatoon. The prosecution has also produced certain exhibits (carbon copy of fardbeyan and carbon copy of chargesheet). After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons.

6. In criminal appeal against acquittal what the Appellate Court has to examine is whether the finding of the learned court below is perverse and prima facie illegal. Once the Appellate Court comes to the finding that the grounds on which the judgment is based is not perverse, the scope of appeal against acquittal is limited considering the fact that the legal presumption about the innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the finding of the Court. At this point, it is imperative to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surajpal Singh & Ors. Versus The State reported in 1952 SCR 193, paragraph 13 of which reads as under:

"..the High court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded. But it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons."

7. In the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 in paragraph 75, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the said view and observed as under:

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM2OSMyMDIzIzEjTg==-15TVp7BfA08=

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.