High Court of Kerala

A.T Varghese vs.Appukuttan (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/45864)

MANU/KE/2177/2024

26.06.2024

Criminal

Unless the findings are patently incorrect and against the evidence, an order of acquittal cannot be reversed

Present is an appeal against acquittal. The de facto complainant/victim is the Appellant. He expired and his legal heirs are the additional appellants. The Respondent was charged with an offence under Sections 328 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). After trial, he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge. MO1 is a gold ingot. The trial court ordered to confiscate the same. Aggrieved by the orders of acquittal and confiscation, present appeal has been filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The findings of the court below leading to the acquittal of the 1st Respondent cannot be said to be incorrect. Unless the findings are patently incorrect and against the evidence, an order of acquittal cannot be reversed.

The Apex Court held in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari and others that, in an appeal against acquittal, the power of the appellate court to re-appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion is not circumscribed by any limitation. But it is equally settled that the appellate court must not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly, where the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance/misreading of relevant evidence on record. Hence, the order acquitting the 1st respondent is confirmed.

Sale of the gold ornaments by the 1st respondent in Apsara Jewellery stands established by the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 and also the recovery based on statement. Although the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 is not sufficient to establish the identity of the gold ornaments, their evidence before the court and their statement before the police certainly establish that the ornaments purchased from the 1st respondent belonged to PW2.

Although the gold could be recovered only as ingot, the evidence and materials proved that the same is the converted form of the ornaments stolen from the possession of PW2. Therefore, the order of the trial court to confiscate MO1 is incorrect. It is liable to be returned to PW2, who is the appellant. Since he is no more, additional appellant Nos.2 to 4, who are his legal heirs, are entitled to receive it back.

The acquittal of the 1st respondent is confirmed and MO1 is ordered to be returned additional Appellant Nos. 2 to 4 on production of a legal heirship certificate. Appeal disposed off.

Tags : Acquittal Evidence Legality

Share :