2024 (6) TMI 1453 - HC - Indian Laws

Appellate court upholds acquittal in marriage pretext case, finds insufficient evidence and no exceptional circumstances for interference

Bombay HC dismissed appeal against acquittal in case involving allegations of physical relations under pretext of marriage and job promise. Court applied ... Acquittal of the accused - it is alleged that the respondent No. 2 had physical relations with appellant, on the pretext of marriage and promise to give her a job - HELD THAT:- The law with regard to the scope of interference by the Appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal, is no longer res integra. In SHEO SWARUP AND ORS. VERSUS THE KING-EMPEROR [1934 (7) TMI 17 - PRIVY COUNCIL], one of the earliest case dealing with the scope of the Appellate Court against an order of acquittal, the Privy Council held 'Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters.' The law on the issue i.e. scope for interference in an appeal against acquittal can very broadly be summarized as follows; that in exceptional cases where there are compelling and substantial reasons; and where the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, clearly unreasonable, manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record, or contrary to law, and the findings have been arrived at, by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material or is `against the weight of evidence’ or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. However, whilst doing so, the Court has to bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court’s acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence; and that interference in a routine manner, only because another view is possible should be avoided. It is the appellant’s case that she got married to the respondent No. 2 as per Hindu rites and customs. The evidence of the neighbours also does not, in any way, further the prosecution case. Conclusion - Keeping in mind all the sections alleged as against the respondent No.2. In the facts, there are no infirmity in the said judgment and as such, no interference is warranted. Appeal dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this appeal against acquittal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were:Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondent on charges under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 494 (marriage during lifetime of husband or wife) of the Indian Penal Code was perverse or unsustainable on the evidence.Whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused on the charges alleged.What is the scope and extent of interference by the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, particularly in light of settled legal principles and precedents.Whether the facts and evidence, including the nature of the relationship between the appellant and respondent, supported the prosecution's case or justified the trial court's findings.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISScope of Interference in Appeal Against AcquittalThe Court extensively examined the legal framework governing appeals against acquittal, relying on authoritative precedents from the Privy Council, the Supreme Court, and High Courts. The legal principles distilled from these precedents include:The appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate, and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, without any statutory limitation (Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor; M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra).Despite the wide powers, the appellate court must exercise caution due to the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, which is further reinforced by the acquittal of the trial court (M.G. Agarwal; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka).The appellate court should not disturb the acquittal unless there are 'very substantial and compelling reasons' such as the trial court's conclusion being palpably wrong, based on erroneous law, manifestly unjust, ignoring or misreading material evidence, or resulting in grave miscarriage of justice (Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P.).If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the appellate court must favour the accused and uphold the acquittal (Chandrappa; Ghurey Lal).The appellate court must give proper weight and consideration to the trial court's findings, especially when based on the appreciation of oral evidence and witness demeanor (M.G. Agarwal; Sidhartha Vashisht v. State).The Court emphasized that while the appellate court has wide powers, interference in acquittal should not be routine or merely because another view is possible. The reasons for interference must be cogent, adequate, and substantial.Application of Legal Principles to the Facts of the CaseThe appellant alleged that the respondent had physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage and promise of employment, and later committed offences including rape, cheating, and criminal intimidation. The prosecution's case primarily rested on the appellant's testimony and supporting witnesses such as medical officers, neighbors, and the investigating officer.However, the trial court found that:The relationship between the appellant and respondent was consensual and lasted about two years, during which they cohabited as husband and wife.The appellant was a mature, divorced woman who did not complain of rape or non-consensual relations during the entire period of their association.The appellant's evidence did not establish the essential ingredients of Sections 376 (rape) and 420 (cheating) as the relations were consensual and there was no deception or fraud established beyond reasonable doubt.The allegations of assault, insult, and criminal intimidation under Sections 323, 504, and 506 were vague and lacked particulars such as specific dates, times, or exact words used, rendering the evidence insufficient to sustain conviction.The appellant's own evidence disclosed that she married the respondent according to Hindu rites and traditions, supported by a marriage registration certificate, and that they lived together post-marriage.The respondent's alleged admission of having a wife and child came after the marriage, but the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 494 conclusively.The trial court's findings, as extracted from the judgment, highlighted the absence of credible evidence to establish non-consent or cheating, and the lack of particulars or corroboration for the offences of assault and intimidation. The Court noted that the trial court had properly marshalled the evidence and applied the law correctly.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe appellant's counsel argued that the acquittal was perverse and contrary to the prosecution evidence. However, the appellate court observed that the trial court had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and assessing their demeanor, which the appellate court could not substitute lightly.The Court rejected the submission that the acquittal was perverse, finding no compelling or substantial reason to interfere. The evidence was not found to be ignored or misread by the trial court. The appellant's own testimony indicated a consensual relationship and subsequent marriage, undermining the prosecution's case on rape and cheating.The Court also noted that the prosecution witnesses, including neighbors, did not support the allegations of assault or intimidation with sufficient detail or consistency.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court reiterated and applied settled legal principles regarding appeals against acquittals, stating:'The law on the issue i.e. scope for interference in an appeal against acquittal can very broadly be summarized as follows; that in exceptional cases where there are compelling and substantial reasons; and where the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, clearly unreasonable, manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record, or contrary to law, and the findings have been arrived at, by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material or is `against the weight of evidence' or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, the Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal. However, whilst doing so, the Court has to bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence; and that interference in a routine manner, only because another view is possible should be avoided.'The Court upheld the trial court's conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt under the charged sections. It observed that the evidence showed a consensual relationship and subsequent marriage, negating the charge of rape and cheating. The allegations of assault and intimidation were vague and unsubstantiated.The Court concluded:'In the circumstances, it is not acceptable that the accused established sexual relations with her without her consent... the material placed on the record by the prosecution is not sufficient and cogent to attract ingredients of section 375 and 420 of the IPC... on the basis of such vague and incomplete evidence, it cannot be said that the accused has committed offence under sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC.'Accordingly, the appeal against acquittal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment.