CAUSE TITLE:
ROOPWANTI v STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
DATE OF ORDER:
24th FEBRUARY, 2023
JUDGE(S):
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI
PARTIES:
Appellant: ROOPWANTI
Respondent: STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), has upheld the impugned order of the High Court and the Trial Court. The court said that as there is no contrary to the order of trial court then the order of acquittal cannot be interfered.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Indian Penal Code 1860
- Section 148 – any person in possession of any kind of deadly weapon and is being used and which is likely to cause death.
- Section 506 – states the punishment for criminal intimidation.
BRIEF FACTS:
- On 22nd December 2009 the deceased was attacked by the respondents and was taken to the hospital and on 23rd December 2009 he died.
- FIR was filed under section 148,149,323,324,307,302 and 506 of the IPC after which the investigation began. The report was submitted and the trial stated.
- The respondents pleaded not guilty of the alleged offence. Upon further analysis of the evidence the court was doubtful of the prosecution and ordered absolute acquittal of the respondents.
- High Court dismissed the appeal field stating that the order of the trial court was in accordance with the evidence produced and there was no error.
- The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court regarding the acquittal of the respondents.
QUESTIONS RAISED:
Whether order of full acquittal is against the administration of justice?
What are the criteria of applying the reverse acquittal order?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The council contended that due to respondents action the appellant’s son was admitted in the hospital and after some days he died.
- FIR was filed and the case went before the court where trial court gave the order of acquittal and High Court upheld the order.
- It is prayed that the evidence and the facts should be looked thoroughly and justice be done to the deceased
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It was stated by the trial court that case was lacking support from the eyewitness’s side.
- The recorded statements of the appellant, mother of the deceased, were not matching the crime scene when compared to the prime witness. Also her presence at the crime scene was not proven. It was noted that as being the mother of the deceased, the evidence produced by her is no reliable.
- It was contended that forensic report also showed no blood stains on the weapon, even the blood stains on lathi were not matching with the deceased blood.
- According to ‘Suman Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation’ the reversal of acquittal is admissible only when the trial courts order is contrary or obstructive.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- The court said while citing the judgment of ‘Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat’ that evidence favouring the accused must be considered in the case of reversal of acquittal.
- The court has awarded additional security as accused was ordered the absolute acquittal. No such perversity has been constituted by the trial court in giving the order of full acquittal.
- Therefore there is no reason of interfering with the order of the High Court and the Trial Court and the appeal is set side.
CONCLUSION
In the above case it is explained that the court should focus more on the material facts indicating the innocence of the accused in the case where acquittal is reversed. Accordingly, the court should also keep in mind the analysis of the on-going proceedings, whether it is strengthened or it stands fortified. The court should be particular while interfering with the evaluation for the trial court in order to maintain the administration of justice
In the case of burden of proof the prosecution is vested with heavy responsibility to reserve the false presumption of innocence and to prove it as void.
Therefore the reversal of acquittal is permissible only when there exist ‘absolute unreasonable’ and there are ‘contrary and substantial reasoning’, this was said in the case of ‘Mrinal Das & Others Vs. The State of Tripura’
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
