JUDGMENT
D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri Dhote, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the appellant, and Shri Gupta, learned
Counsel for the respondent.
2. The State has filed the instant appeal against the
judgment and order dated 18.10.1989 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.
70/1996 whereby respondent is acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as follows :
The respondent and deceased Ramesh were the
residents of village Banpuri and their agricultural
fields were adjacent to each other. It is alleged that
there was a quarrel between them for taking water from
canal. The incident occurred on 6.12.1985. It is
alleged that on that day deceased Ramesh was sitting at
about 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on the flag post. PW 4
Doma and Raghoba came there and also sat on the platform
of the flag post. After taking meal, people of the
village normally used to assemble near the flag post for
chitchatting. On the day of incident, deceased Ramesh
also came and sat on that platform. At the distance of
about 60-70 feet from that platform towards West, there
was a shop of the respondent. In front of his shop,
there was an electric pole having tubelight. At the
relevant time, respondent came from the direction of
shop and started abusing without naming any person. It
is alleged that deceased Ramesh asked the respondent why
he was abusing people. To that, respondent told him to
keep quiet since he was not abusing him. It is the
prosecution case that respondent provoked the deceased.
The deceased went towards the respondent and respondent
also came towards the deceased. They met near the house
of Harishchandra Bawankule. There was a pole, but it
had no bulb or tubelight. It is alleged that the
respondent gave a blow of large knife on the chest of
the deceased. The deceased at once fell down on the
ground saying “Melore Bapa”. PW 4 Doma and Raghoba, who
were present on the flag post, rushed towards him. They
saw bleeding injury on the chest of deceased. The
respondent fled away from the place with a knife.
Deceased Ramesh succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
The dead body was brought under a banyan tree. The
father of the deceased came on the spot. The brother of
the deceased also came there. Police Patil and Sarpanch
were called. A report was scribed and forwarded to the
Police Station with the brother of the deceased, namely,
Ramchandra, on the basis of which an offence was
registered.
4. The Police came on the spot. The inquest
panchanama as well as spot panchanama were carried out
on the morning of 7.12.1985. The dead body of Ramesh
was referred to the Medical Officer for post mortem
examination. It is alleged that the respondent after
the incident went to the house of his relative at Ramtek
and made an extra judicial confession to PW 1 Surendra
Wadibhasme. PW 1 Surendra Wadibhasme brought him to the
Police Station, Ramtek and respondent was arrested in
the Police Station, Ramtek. The respondent was
interrogated in the presence of panchas and knife was
seized at the instance of the respondent. There were
blood stains on the clothes of the respondent, which
were seized by the Police. The Investigating Officer
recorded the statements of witnesses and referred the
large knife, clothes of the deceased, blood sample of
the respondent and clothes of the accused to the
Chemical Analyser and after completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed against the respondent for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal
Code.
5. The defence of the respondent in his statement
under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and from
the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses
is that of false implication in the crime by the
prosecution. According to the defence, on the day of
incident, after taking meal, the respondent went to bed.
At about 11.45 p.m. his wife had gone in the open area
to answer the call of nature. She saw deceased Ramesh
near her courtyard armed with a knife and under the
influence of liquor. The deceased caught hold of her
hand. However, wife of the respondent managed to
release herself from clutches of deceased and pushed the
deceased, with the result deceased fell down on the
ground. The deceased thereafter got up and went upto
70-80 feet and fell down near the house of Jago. It is
the version of the respondent that he went to the house
of Surendra due to fear of the brother of the
deceased. He was apprehending that brother of the
deceased may assault him and, therefore, he went to
Ramtek. Hence, the defence of the respondent is that he
is falsely implicated in the present crime.
6. The prosecution in order to prove the offence
against the respondent examined PW 1 Surendra
Wadibhasme, PW 2 Sulochanabai, PW 3 Ramchandra, PW 4
Doma, PW 5 Dr. Maheshkumar Chaurasiya, PW 6 Bhadu
Patil, PW 7 Kanthiram PW 8 Daulat and PW 9 Eknath
Khadse. Out of these prosecution witnesses, PW 2
Sulochanabai, PW 4 Doma and PW 6 Bhadu are examined by
the prosecution as eye witnesses to the incident.
7. At the outset Shri Dhote, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the appellant, states that PW 1
Surendra has not supported the prosecution and was
declared hostile to the prosecution and, therefore, so
far as extra judicial confession alleged to have been
given by the respondent is concerned, it would be of
little help to the prosecution. However, it is
vehemently argued that the evidence of eye witnesses,
namely, PW 2 Sulochana, PW 4 Domu and PW 6 Bhadu is
consistent with the material particulars of the
prosecution case and proves the offence of murder
against the respondent. It is contended that evidence
of these witnesses is also corroborated by the medical
evidence and, therefore, finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial Court is bad in law.
8. Shri Dhote further states that PW 2 Sulochana has
stated that at the relevant time, she was present in her
house and witnessed the incident from her house. It is
submitted that in her evidence, she has deposed that at
about 9.30 p.m.to 9.45 p.m. the respondent was present
in front of his grocery shop and deceased Ramesh was
sitting on the platform of the flag post. There were
tubelights on the street and she has seen the incident
in the light of the tube. Her house is about 40-50 feet
from the place of incident. According to her, pole
having tube was near the shop of the respondent and
another pole having tube was near the temple of Maroti.
The temple of Maroti is at the distance of about 240
feet from the flag post. This witness has deposed that
respondent was talking to deceased Ramesh from the shop
and there was exchange of words going on between them.
However, she was not aware the reason for their quarrel.
The respondent provoked the deceased. Deceased Ramesh
went towards the shop of the respondent and the
respondent also came forward to the flag post. Both of
them met in front of the house of Harichand. As soon as
the respondent came near the deceased, the deceased
raised shouts as “Melore Bapa, Melore Bapa” and kept his
hands on his chest and returned back. The deceased
walked about 20 feet and thereafter fell down on the
ground. The other people, who were sitting at the flag
host, were at the distance of about 60 feet from the
place where the respondent and deceased met with each
other and incident had taken place. It is also deposed
by this witness that PW 4 Doma and Raghoba came there.
This witness had seen injury on the chest of the
deceased. According to this witness, after the assault,
the respondent was standing there. PW 3 Ramchandra
caught hold of hand of the respondent and brother of the
deceased rushed to assault the respondent. Thereafter
respondent fled away from the place. This witness has
further stated in her examination-in-chief that
respondent assaulted deceased, but she could not see the
weapon with which deceased was assaulted by the
respondent.
9. It is contended by Shri Dhote, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the appellant, that testimony of
PW 2 Sulochana is not shaken in the cross-examination
and so called omissions and contradictions brought in
her evidence by the defence are not material in nature
and do not affect the testimony of this witness
adversely.
10. It is further contended by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that PW 4 Doma, another eye witness to
the incident, has also given similar version in his
examination-in-chief and corroborated the testimony of
PW 2 Sulochana. It is submitted that PW 4 Doma has
deposed that the respondent was near the pole having
tube and deceased went towards him. They met near that
pole. There was some talk between them. Respondent all
of a sudden gave a blow of large knife on the chest of
the deceased. This witness saw the incident in the
light of the tube. This witness and Raghoba rushed
towards deceased. The respondent left the spot and fled
away from the spot immediately after the incident with
the knife after the deceased fell down on the ground.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further
submits that PW 4 Doma has given a detailed description
about the knife used by the respondent at the time of
incident. This witness has deposed that knife had a
hole and thread was tied on it. It was about 9 inch
long including a handle. It had a handle of iron. It
is contended that in the cross-examination of this
witness, nothing worthwhile has come to affect testimony
of this witness adversely.
12. It is contended by the learned Additional Public
Prosecution that similarly evidence of PW 6 Bhadu is
consistent with the evidence of other eye witnesses. He
has also stated that at the relevant time, respondent
was having a knife and he assaulted deceased by means of
a knife. The deceased immediately fell down on the
ground and respondent fled away from the spot with the
knife. It is contended that evidence of this witness is
also not shaken in the cross-examination and, therefore,
is acceptable and can be relied upon. It is submitted
by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that
evidence of the above referred eye witnesses ought to
have been accepted by the trial Court.
13. Shri Dhote further submits that evidence of PW 5
Dr. Maheshkumar Chourasiya supports the prosecution
case. Dr. Maheshkumar has conducted post mortem
examination on the dead body of Ramesh and found the
following external injury on the dead body :
“stab wound 1 1/2″ x 1/2″ penetrating the
throat completely on the chest of left
side near the nipple and 2″ away to the
left side from the mid-line in the 5th
intercoastal space. Injury was fresh
caused by sharp and pointed object. The
injury was ante mortem.”
14. It is further contended by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor that oral report of the incident was
lodged by PW 8 Daulat Bawankule, father of the deceased,
which was scribed by Tarachand, Police Patil in the
presence of PW 7 Kanthiram. It is contended that report
was scribed on the basis of information disclosed to
these persons by PW 4 Doma and Raghoba. It is submitted
that in the said oral report (Exh. 61) it is mentioned
that the respondent dealt a blow by knife on the person
of deceased and after the assault, respondent fled away
from the spot. It is, therefore, contended that the
first information report also corroborates the version
of the prosecution. It is also contended that discovery
of weapon by the respondent having blood stains and
seizure of clothes of the respondent having blood of O
Group are the other circumstances, which corroborate the
case of the prosecution. It is, therefore, contended
that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court is not sustainable in law.
15. Shri Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent,
supports the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
Court and states that the respondent has been falsely
implicated in the crime by the prosecution. It is
submitted that evidence adduced by the prosecution of
eye witnesses is not only contradictory to each other,
but same is unreliable and, therefore, cannot be relied
upon. It is contended that the oral report was scribed
by Police Patil on the basis of information about the
incident disclosed by PW 4 Doma and lodged by PW 8
Daulat. It is contended that from the oral report (Exh.
51) it is clear that PW 4 Doma was not present when the
incident had taken place. The oral report (Exh. 51)
reveals that PW 4 Doma and Raghoba had seen the
respondent running away with the knife from the spot.
There is no mention in the report (Exh. 51) that Doma
or Raghoba had seen the incident. The prosecution has
not examined Raghoba. It is contended that these
recitals in the oral report (Exh. 51) totally falsify
the claim of PW 4 Doma about his presence at the scene
of offence at the time of assault and, therefore, PW 4
Doma is not the person, who had witnessed the actual
assault. Therefore, oral report (Exh. 51) as well as
evidence of PW 4 Doma create grave suspicion in respect
of incident of assault and cannot be relied upon.
16. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for
the respondent that evidence of PW 2 Sulochana is also
unreliable and the trial Court was justified in
rejecting her testimony. It is submitted that this
witness, even otherwise, could not see the weapon by
which alleged blow was given by the author of the injury
because of insufficient light. It is contended that the
pole having tube, which was near the shop of the
respondent as well as near the house of PW 2 Sulochana
was about 60 feet away from the spot of incident and,
therefore, it was not possible for her to witness the
incident and, therefore, this witness has correctly
stated in her evidence that she could not see the weapon
of assault. It is specifically stated by this witness
in her evidence that before actual assault, there was
exchange of hot words between respondent and deceased
for sometime and it is only thereafter actual assault
had taken place. It is further deposed that after
injury was received by the deceased on his chest,
deceased walked about 20 feet and then collapsed.
Similarly, according to this witness, respondent has
remained on the spot after assault and when PW 3
Ramchandra tried to catch hold of him, he ran away from
the spot. It is contended by the learned Counsel for
the respondent that all these facts are not stated by
the other eye witnesses and the evidence of other eye
witnesses does not support the version of PW 2 Sulochana
in this regard. It is contended that apart from this,
there are material omissions in the evidence of this
witness, which affect her ocular testimony and the trial
Court was justified in rejecting the evidence of this
witness.
17. Learned Counsel Shri Gupta states that as far as
evidence of PW 4 Doma, the other eye witness examined by
the prosecution is concerned, his very presence at the
time of assault is doubtful in view of recitals in the
first information report wherein it is specifically
stated that PW 4 Doma has only seen the respondent
running away from the spot with a knife. It is,
therefore, contended that evidence of this witness is
not reliable and cannot be relied upon. Similarly, this
witness has given altogether a different version than
that of PW 2 Sulochana. PW 4 Doma has deposed that
respondent all of a sudden gave a blow by a large knife
on the chest of deceased and the deceased immediately
fell down on the ground. This witness has not deposed
that respondent and deceased were abusing each other
before the actual incident of assault as well as
deceased walked about 20 feet after the assault. It is
contended that this witness is alleged to have seen the
assault from quite distance and even then he has given a
detailed description of the knife in minute details,
which shows enthusiasm and eagerness of this witness to
implicate the respondent falsely in the crime. It is
contended that contradictions and omissions finding
place in the evidence of this witness are of material
nature and create a serious doubt about authenticity of
evidence of this witness.
18. Shri Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondent,
states that as far as evidence of PW 6 Bhadu is
concerned, same is also not consistent with the evidence
of PW 2 Sulochana. It is contended that as per evidence
of this witness, after respondent gave a blow on the
chest of deceased, deceased fell down and respondent
fled away from the spot with a knife in his hand. The
learned Counsel submits that this fact is inconsistent
with the version of PW 2 Sulochana. Similarly, there
are innumerable omissions of material nature in the
testimony of this witness, which affect his evidence
adversely and, therefore, trial Court is justified in
rejecting the same.
19. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the
respondent that even as per prosecution case, there were
only two poles on which tubes were burning. One is near
the shop of the respondent as well as house of PW 2
Sulochana, which is at the distance of about 60 feet
from the spot and the other pole was in front of Maroti
temple, which is about 240 feet away from the spot. It
is contended that because of distance between these
poles and spot, the light at the relevant time near the
spot was insufficient and, therefore, it was not
possible for the witnesses to identify author of the
crime. It is submitted that this fact to some extent is
supported by the evidence of PW 2 Sulochana, who has
admitted that because of darkness, she could not see the
weapon alleged to have been used by the author of the
crime and, therefore, evidence of this witness creates
doubt about actual assault.
20. It is further contended by the learned Counsel for
the respondent that evidence of eye witnesses being
inconsistent with each other, has rightly been discarded
by the trial Court. It is submitted that discovery of
knife from the respondent has rightly been rejected by
the trial Court in view of the fact that memorandum of
seizure was written after knife was produced. It is
further submitted that since evidence of prosecution
witnesses is doubtful, the medical evidence on its own
is not sufficient to hold the respondent guilty for the
offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and,
therefore, trial Court is justified in acquitting the
respondent.
21. It is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for
the respondent that this is an appeal against acquittal
and, therefore, unless finding of acquittal recorded by
the trial Court is totally perverse and unsustainable in
law, this Court normally does not interfere. It is
submitted that in view of inconsistent evidence adduced
by the prosecution, doubt is created in the mind of the
Court about its truthfulness and, therefore, trial Court
is justified in acquitting the respondent and finding of
acquittal is sustainable in law.
22. We have given our anxious thought to the various
contentions canvassed by the respective learned Counsel
for the parties and also perused the evidence on record.
In the instant case, though prosecution has examined as
many as nine prosecution witnesses, however, material
evidence is of PW 2 Sulochana, PW 3 Ramchandra, PW 4
Domu and PW 6 Bhadu. These are the eye witnesses to the
incident in question. Since PW 1 Surendra has not
supported the prosecution case in respect of extra
judicial confession alleged to have been made by the
respondent, the same is of no help to the prosecution.
In order to ascertain whether prosecution has succeeded
or not in proving the charge of murder against
respondent, it will be proper for us to scrutinise the
oral report (Exh. 51) lodged by PW 8 Daulat as well as
evidence of eye witnesses.
23. The report (Exh.51) though is lodged by PW 8
Daulat, same is scribed by the Police Patil of the
village, who is not examined by the prosecution, in the
presence of Sarpanch of the village – PW 7 Kanthiram
Deshmukh. The evidence of PW 7 Kanthiram reveals that
incident had taken place on 6.12.1985. At the relevant
time, he was working as Sarpanch of the village. At
about 9 p.m.-10 p.m. PW 8 Daulat and PW 3 Ramchandra
came to his house and asked him to accompany them. This
witness went with them to the spot and saw Ramesh was
lying dead having injury on his chest. This witness has
stated that PW 8 Daulat dictated a report and it was
scribed by Tarachand, Police Patil. PW 8 Daulat put his
thumb impression. In the cross-examination of this
witness, he has admitted that this witness, Tarachand,
Ramchandra and Daulat were present when the report was
scribed. In the presence of this witness, PW 8 Daulat
enquired from Raghoba, PW 4 Doma and PW 2 Sulochana in
respect of incident in question. Then all these persons
went to the office of Gram Panchayat and report was
scribed as dictated by Daulat in the Gram Panchayat.
From the evidence of this witness, it is clear that
information about incident of assault was disclosed to
PW 8 Daulat by Raghoba, PW 4 Doma and PW 2 Sulochana and
on the basis of such information, PW 8 Daulat dictated
the oral report, which was scribed by the Police Patil
and lodged in the Police Station, which is at Exh. 51.
The evidence of PW 8 Daulat shows that he reached the
spot of incident when Sulochanabai, Doma, Raghoba and
other persons were already present there and he learnt
on the spot that respondent assaulted deceased Ramesh
with a large knife. The respondent was not present on
the spot when this witness reached the spot. This
witness has deposed that the report was scribed either
by Sarpanch or Police Patil. From the evidence of this
witness, it is clear that he was not present at the time
of incident and he reached the spot only after incident
was over and witnesses Sulochana, Doma and other persons
had already gathered near the spot of incident.
24. In view of the evidence of PW 7 Kanthiram and PW 8
Daulat, it can safely be inferred that the information
about the incident was disclosed to PW 8 Daulat by PW 4
Doma, Raghoba and PW 2 Sulochana and on the basis of the
said information, PW 8 Daulat dictated the report, which
was scribed by the Police Patil. The recitals in the
report (Exh. 51) reveal that two persons, i.e. Doma
s/o Hagru Ghavade and Raghoba s/o Hagru Bawankar had
seen the respondent when he was running away from the
spot with a knife. This sentence in Exh. 51 is very
pertinent and speaks volumes about presence of PW 4 Doma
at the time of assault. In view of this specific
sentence in the oral report (Exh. 51), which is first
in point of time lodged by PW 8 Daulat, it is clear that
PW 4 Doma came on the scene of offence at the time when
respondent was running away from the spot with a knife
and, therefore, it falsifies the claim of PW 4 Doma that
he was present on the spot at the time of assault and
witnessed the incident of assault. If PW 4 Doma is the
person, who had given the information about the incident
to PW 8 Daulat and if he really had witnessed the
incident, he would not have forgotten to disclose this
fact to PW 8 Daulat and PW 8 Daulat also would not have
failed to mention this aspect in the report (Exh. 51).
On the other hand, the recitals in Exh. 51 indicate
that PW 4 Doma reached the spot of incident after the
assault and at the time when respondent was running away
from the spot with the knife. On the backdrop of these
vital facts, a doubt is created about truthfulness not
only in respect of recitals in the report (Exh. 51),
but also the claim of PW 4 Doma that he had witnessed
the incident of assault. This aspect demonstrates the
anxiety of prosecution to involve the respondent in the
crime in question.
25. PW 2 Sulochana is alleged to have witnessed the
incident from her house, which is admittedly about 60-70
feet away from the spot of incident. It is not in
dispute that at the relevant time there were two poles
on which electric light was burning. One is near the
shop of the respondent at the distance of
about 60 feet from the spot and other in front of Maroti
temple, which was about 240 feet away from the spot of
incident. It has come in the evidence of PW 2 Sulochana
that because of darkness, she could not see the weapon
of assault alleged to have been used by the respondent.
It is pertinent to note that PW 2 Sulochana in her
ocular testimony has specifically stated that there was
exchange of hot words and some altercations had taken
place between deceased and respondent before actual
incident of assault and after the blow of knife given by
the respondent, deceased walked about 20 feet and then
fell down. Similarly, respondent was standing on the
spot after incident of assault. PW 3 Ramchandra
thereafter tried to apprehend the respondent and,
therefore, respondent fled away from the spot with the
knife. This version of PW 2 Sulochana is not supported
by other eye witnesses. The fact is that because of
insufficient light, this witness could not see the
weapon. In a situation like this, it is very difficult
for us to believe that she could have seen the attempt
alleged to have been made by the respondent for giving
such a blow. The evidence of this witness to some
extent establishes the fact that light near the spot was
insufficient. The inconsistent version given by this
witness as well as omissions, which are finding place in
her evidence create a serious doubt about truthfulness
of ocular testimony of this witness and the trial Court,
in our view, was justified in not placing reliance on
the testimony of this witness.
26. So far as evidence of PW 4 Doma is concerned, we
have already observed that in view of recitals in the
report (Exh. 51), presence of this witness at the time
of assault is highly doubtful and if the evidence of
this witness is evaluated on the backdrop of above
facts, we feel that it is also inconsistent with the
version of PW 2 Sulochana. This witness has not deposed
that deceased after the incident of assault walked some
distance and then fell down. On the other hand,
according to this witness, respondent left the spot and
fled away from the spot immediately after the incident
with the knife. Both these aspects are inconsistent
with the evidence of PW 2 Sulochana. Similarly, the
detailed description of knife given by this witness
clearly shows his anxiety to implicate the respondent.
At the time of incident, it was dark and light also was
insufficient at the spot of incident and this witness is
alleged to have seen the incident from some distance.
In a situation like this, it is difficult for us to
appreciate as to how this witness could see even the
small hole on the knife as well as thread. As we have
already observed hereinabove, presence of this witness
itself is doubtful in view of recitals in the report
(Exh. 51). The inconsistent version given by this
witness in his evidence as well as omissions and
contradictions appearing in his evidence create serious
doubt about authenticity of the ocular testimony of this
witness and the trial Court, in our view, was justified
in rejecting the evidence of this witness.
27. So far as PW 6 Bhadu Patil is concerned, there are
omissions in his evidence, which have direct bearing on
his testimony. This witness claimed to have stated
before the Police that PW 4 Doma, Raghoba and Jago were
present at the flag post. However, he could not assign
any reason why this fact was not mentioned in his
statement. It is pertinent to note that this witness
has for the first time introduced in his
examination-in-chief that witnesses Doma, Raghoba and
Jago were present with him on the platform. However, he
omitted to mention this in his statement before the
Police, which, in our opinion, is a material omission
and creates doubt either about presence of this witness
on the spot or other eye witness PW 4 Doma. This
witness in his examination-in-chief has introduced
altogether different prosecution case. According to
this witness, quarrel between respondent and deceased
had taken place because of some dispute regarding
distribution of water of canal. This aspect is totally
inconsistent with the version given by other two eye
witnesses in this regard. Even otherwise, there is an
omission in this regard in the Police Statement which,
in our view, is material in the facts and circumstances
of the present case and creates a serious doubt about
his ocular testimony in respect of incident of assault.
There are quite a few other omissions in his evidence
which, in our considered view, affect credibility of
testimony of this witness.
28. In the instant case, evidence of so called eye
witnesses is not only inconsistent with each other, but
the same is also not free from doubt and further creates
serious doubt about authenticity of their ocular
testimonies and the trial Court, in our view, was
justified in not placing reliance on the evidence of
these witnesses. The discovery made by the respondent
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be said to
be a discovery in law since memorandum as well as
seizure memo were written after knife was produced by
the respondent and, therefore, procedure adopted by the
Investigating Officer is inconsistent with the procedure
contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and,
therefore, same also, in our view, does not support the
case of the prosecution.
29. It is no doubt true that Medical Officer PW 5 Dr.
Maheshkumar Chourasiya conducted post mortem examination
on the dead body of Ramesh and noticed the above
referred injury on the person of the deceased. However,
it must be born in mind that medical evidence is a
corroborative piece of evidence in order to lend
corroboration to the material particulars disclosed by
the prosecution witnesses in order to prove the offence
charged against the accused and that by itself does not
further the case of the prosecution and, therefore, only
on this piece of evidence, conviction cannot be
recorded. Similarly, we cannot turn the nelsons eye to
the fact that this is an appeal against acquittal and it
is well settled that in an appeal against acquittal, on
re-consideration of evidence of prosecution, even if
view other than the view taken by the trial Court is
possible, the view which is in favour of the accused
should be taken. Similarly, this Court should be slow
in interfering with the finding of acquittal unless the
finding of acquittal is totally perverse and de hors of
the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Keeping this
legal position in mind coupled with the above referred
evidence of prosecution, in our considered view, no
interference is called for. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed.