Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vipin Shantilal Shah, filed a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 6 June 2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, acquitting respondent no.2, Smt. Roshan Farookh Delkha, of offences punishable under Section 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint) read with Section 109 (punishment of abetment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 395 (punishment for dacoity) read with Section 109 IPC. The case of the prosecution was that on 2 April 1992 at about 1:15 p.m., four persons (original accused nos. 2, 3, 4 and one unknown person) entered the office of the complainant and forcibly entered his cabin. They claimed to have come on behalf of respondent no.2 to collect shares, stocks, and debentures of one Mrs. Narialwala. The complainant informed them he did not have the items. One of the persons, Shobhraj (original accused no.4), telephoned respondent no.2 from the cabin, and the complainant overheard instructions to the effect "Unko Khatam Kar Dalo" (finish him off). Another person, Rajan, took out a revolver, threatened to kill the complainant, and placed it on his left temple. Rajan then snatched keys, opened a drawer, and searched for share certificates. They did not find any share certificates but found Rs. 1,00,000 in cash in a briefcase and table drawer, which they took away. The complainant went to MRA Marg Police Station on 3 April 1992 and was advised to give a written complaint, which he did on 4 April 1992. The trial court acquitted respondent no.2, finding no credible evidence of her abetment. The High Court, in appeal, held that the standard of review in an appeal against acquittal is that the High Court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The court found that the only evidence against respondent no.2 was the complainant's testimony that he overheard a telephonic conversation, which was not corroborated and was insufficient to prove abetment. The court also noted that respondent no.2 was not present at the scene and there was no evidence of her instigation or active participation. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against acquittal - Standard of review - High Court will not interfere with acquittal unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - The appellate court must give due weight to the trial court's view of evidence and the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused (Paras 1-3). B) Criminal Law - Abetment - Section 109 IPC - Mere presence or telephonic conversation not sufficient to prove abetment - The prosecution must prove that the accused instigated or actively participated in the commission of the offence - In this case, the only evidence against respondent no.2 was a telephonic conversation overheard by the complainant, which was not corroborated and was insufficient to establish abetment (Paras 2-4). C) Criminal Law - Dacoity - Section 395 IPC - House trespass - Section 452 IPC - Acquittal upheld - The trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt - The High Court found no perversity in the trial court's reasoning and dismissed the appeal (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of respondent no.2 for offences under Sections 452 and 395 read with Section 109 IPC was perverse and warranted interference by the High Court.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of respondent no.2.
Law Points
- Acquittal appeal
- standard of review in appeal against acquittal
- no interference unless perverse
- abetment requires active participation or instigation
- Section 109 IPC
- Section 452 IPC
- Section 395 IPC
