2021 M L D 2011
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss.452, 337-A(i), 148 & 149---House-trespass after preparation for hurt, shajjah-i-mudihah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Prosecution case was that the accused persons trespassed the house of sister of complainant and caused injury to complainant---Application under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C., was filed, which was accepted without issuing notice to the complainant, while relying upon the statements of the complainant at bail and remand stage---Scope---If statements of complainant were not made by complainant before the court where prosecution was pending, Trial Court was not justified to give any credence to the statements of complainant given at bail and remand stage, for offence under S.337-A(i), P.P.C., enlisted under S. 345(2), Cr.P.C., and that too, without issuing any notice to the complainant during trial because Trial Court had no occasion and chance to evaluate the credibility, validity, genuineness or being volunteer of alleged compromise entered into between the parties at bail and remand stage---Fact of offence under S.452, P.P.C., being non-compoundable had also escaped the notice of Trial Court---Compromise could only be effected qua the offences which were made compoundable by Sched. II of Cr.P.C.---Offence under S.452, P.P.C., was not made compoundable, even a valid compromise effected between the parties to extent of allied compoundable offence, could not be made basis to acquit the accused from such non-compoundable offence---Although such compromise could be considered for the purpose of quantum of sentence---Order of Trial Court acquitting the respondents on the basis of statements made at bail and remand stage, considering it a valid compromise, was not legally justified, however, it was unequivocally required by S.345, Cr.P.C., that such a compromise could only be effected with the permission of court, before which any prosecution for such offence was pending---During bail and remand stage, prosecution of the case was not pending before the Judicial Magistrate when such statements were recorded, hence such statements could not assume status of a valid compromise for offences enlisted in subsection (2) of S.345, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court also fell into error to treat the offence S.452, P.P.C., as compoundable---Circumstances established that judgment of acquittal of respondents passed by the Trial Court being patently illegal, and perverse, was not sustainable in the eye of law---Appeal was allowed by setting aside the judgment of acquittal and matter was remanded to the Trial Court to proceed further with the trial court from the point of distribution of copies to the respondents and to conclude the trial in accordance with the law.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.417---Appeal against acquittal---Interference---Scope---Ordinarily, appellate court did not disturb the order of acquittal but in cases where such order was wholly artificial, shocking, ridiculous and perverse, the reasons thereof were also artificial and ridiculous, against the record or law, court could reverse the findings of acquittal.
0 Comments