2021 P Cr. L J 382
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471 & 109---Cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, using as genuine a forged document, abetment---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged that they cheated and deprived the complainant of Rs. 31,428,000---Perusal of the record showed that on the basis of the recovery items, the accused persons facing trial could not be connected with the commission of the alleged offences---All the documents and items which were sent for Forensic Report were not connecting the present accused with the charges---Other documents with regard to transfer of property by the complainant were only proof of sale of the property by the complainant but even those documents were not sufficient to connect the accused with the offences levelled against them---Prosecution failed to prove any payment to the accused by the complainant---Investigation conducted by FIA was of poor quality and on the basis of their investigation, the accused persons could not be connected with the commission of the alleged offences against them---Receipts produced by witness and the audio cassettes showed signatures of "E" whereas the audio cassettes could not be relied upon until and unless the voice of the accused had gone through the forensic test---No direct or indirect evidence was available on record to connect the accused persons with the commission of the alleged offences levelled against them---Accused were not nominated in the FIR---Nothing incriminating material was available on record against the present accused---All the recoveries were either made through the complainant or from a Flat---Whole prosecution evidence was based on hearsay or mere improvement in the original stance taken by the complainant in the FIR---Record further showed that the co-accused had himself joined the FIA, SIU along with Ambassador of his country and the accused was firstly taken into custody by the police but thereafter, he was let go after initial investigation, which showed that he was not involved in the commission of the alleged offence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.
(b) Criminal trial---
----Burden of proof---Scope---Prosecution was to prove its case beyond doubt and that burden could not shift from prosecution even if the accused person took up any particular plea and failed in it.
(c) Appeal against acquittal---
----Double presumption of innocence--- Interference--- Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal was most narrow and limited---In case of acquittal the presumption of innocence was significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused would be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty in other words, the presumption of innocence was doubled.
(d) Appeal against acquittal---
----Interference---Scope---Acquittal judgment shouldnot be interjected until the findings were perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous---Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on re-appraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could possibly be arrived at---Factual conclusions should not be upset, except when same are palpably perverse, suffering from serious and material factual infirmities.
0 Comments