Mohanan v. Prabha G. Nair & The State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/17TH SRAVANA 1934 CRL.A.No. 203 of 2008 ( ) ------------------------(CC.599/1999 of J.M.F.C.-I, CHERTHALA) APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------ MOHANAN, S/O.GOPALAN, KUNJITHAYIL VEEDU, WARD NO.8, KADAKKARAPPALLY, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH ## RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND THE STATE: ------------------------------------ 1. DR.PRABHA G.NAIR, GYNAECOLOGIST, - K.V.M.HOSPITAL, CHERTHALA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI P.M. SANEER THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** **---------------------------------------Crl.A No. 203 of 2008 ----------------------------------------** Dated the 8th day of August, 2012 ## **JUDGMENT** The complainant in a private complaint is the appellant as he is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.2.2007, in C.C.No.599 of 1999 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-1, Cherthala, by which, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused, under section 255(1) Cr.P.C, who faced the prosecution for the offence punishable under section 304-A of the Indian Penal code (herein after referred for short, 'IPC'). 2. The case of the complainant is that the accused is a Doctor in the Gynaecology Department of the KVM Hospital, Cherthala and the wife of the complainant, namely, Sobhana, consulted the accused in connection with her pregnancy test and after consultation, the accused stated that there was no problem for the mother or the child in the womb. According to the complainant, as per the direction of the accused, the wife of the complainant was admitted in the KVM Hospital on 27.11.1995 and thereafter, on 4.12.95, she gave birth to a still CRA No. 203/08 **:-2-:** born child. According to the complainant, at the time of the delivery, Vacuum Extractor and Forceps were used and episiotomy was also conducted. It is the further case of the complainant that the above said instruments were used in an improper and negligent manner and causing danger to the life of the patient and as a result of which the uterus was injured and the wife of the complainant was having severe pain and bleeding, and finally on 8.12.95 at 5.20 a.m., she passed away. It is the further case of the complainant that , due to the bleeding and pain, on 4.12.95, when the health of the complainant's wife became worse, the complainant and his relatives requested the accused seeking permission for taking the patient to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha, but the accused had assured that there was nothing to worry and, within 2 - 3 days, she will be cured, since the patient was treating with medicines brought from Germany. Thus, According to the complainant, due to careless and negligent manner of dealing with the delivery, the child as well as the mother, Sobhana, the wife of the complainant, died and the death of Sobhana was due to the rupture of uterus, and the accused CRA No. 203/08 ## **:-3-:** suppressed the above fact. According to the complainant, he had preferred a complaint before the Cherthala Police Station on the basis of which, crime No.432/95 registered, but subsequently, the police has referred the crime. Therefore, he approached the court by filing the present complaint as a protest against the refer report of the police. 3. From the impugned judgment, it appears that when the trial court took cognizance and instituted the Calender Case, against the accused, she approached this court by filing Crl.M.C No. 6341/99 which was allowed quashing the entire case, instituted against the accused. Subsequently, at the instance of the complainant, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set aside the order of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.6341/99 as per the judgment in Crl.A.No.515/2003 and the appeal was allowed and directed the trial court to consider the matter in accordance with law. 4. Thereafter the accused entered appearance in the trial court and the particulars of the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC was read over and explained to the accused and she pleaded not guilty and thereafter the complainant has adduced evidence by examining PWs 1 to 6 and producing CRA No. 203/08 **:-4-:** Exts.P1 to P5. 5. When the complainant's evidence was over, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C, and when the evidence and materials brought on record, during the evidence of prosecution, put to the accused and she denied the same. According to the accused, the reason for the death was not due to the complications following rupture of uterus. According to the accused, the patient for the first time came for consultation for abortion and that was in the month of September 1995, and at that time foetus was more than 7 months old and hence she was advised that the abortion was impossible. It is also the case of the accused that, at that time, the patient was having severe anaemia and she was given injection for anemia and that was thus corrected. It is the further case of the accused that, thereafter the patient came only on 29[th] October 1995 and she was asked to come after 15 days, but she did not turn up though the expected date of delivery was 25[th] of November 1995. Thus the patient came only on 27[th] November and till 29[th] , they waited for normal delivery. According to the accused, as there was no pain, the CRA No. 203/08 **:-5-:** patient was given injection and thereafter at about 5 p.m. on that day, the accused had seen the patient, who was in the labour room at that time, and subsequently, at 9 p.m., the accused was called. According to the accused, on that day at 7.15 p.m., after a full dilation till 8.30 p.m., delivery was not happened and hence the duty doctor applied vacuum and on failure of application of vacuum, the accused was contacted at 9.p.m and she met the patient. According to the accused, the foetal heart could not be located. Thus according to the accused, at that time, the only option was to apply outlet forceps to effect delivery and thus the delivery was effected. It is the further case of the defence that, since the child was not crying, the Anesthetist has attempted to resuscitate and , according to the defence, it was a still born baby and the reason for the same was that the umbilical cord was tight around the neck. According to the accused the method for detecting such cord around the neck is Colour Doppler and that system was not available during that period and the same was introduced only later. It is also the case of the defence that, at the time when they attempted for instrumental CRA No. 203/08 **:-6-:** delivery, they could see cervical tear and that was sutured. While suturing was done, the patient fell into shock and pulse and blood pressure became feeble. Thereafter, the earnest attempt for resuscitating the patient was made and at that time, the complainant alone was there and hence the accused herself, the staff and the students have donated blood to the patient and after giving anesthesia, the tear was sutured. According to the accused, subsequent to all stages, the patient was met by the expert doctors. According to the accused, when they suggested the complainant to take another hospital, the complainant himself stated that there was no need for taking the patient to any other hospital and thus with the consent of the complainant, treatment was continued and according to the accused, all available treatments , at that period, was given to the patient and as such, there was no negligence. 6. After the questioning of the accused and at the time of the defence evidence, DW1 Smt. N.S.Sreedevi, Professor , Govt. Medical college Hospital, Calicut, was examined as defence witness. 7. After considering the entire evidence and materials, the CRA No. 203/08 **:-7-:** learned Magistrate has found that, even though the unfortunate death of a baby and mother was resulted, the same was not due to any rash or negligent act of the doctor, the accused in this case. It was also found that, even though the instruments were used for the delivery, it cannot be found that the instrumentation was done by the accused and, the complainant is not in a position to substantiate who had actually applied the instruments. Thus the trial court found that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged under section 304-A IPC and thus she is acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. It is the above findings and order of acquittal are challenged in this appeal. 8. In this case, the memorandum of evidence consists of the deposition of PWs 1 to 6 and Exts.P1 to P7 and the deposition of DW1. I have already referred to the case of the complainant, who is examined as PW1, and during his examination, he had deposed in support of his allegation in the complaint. Thus according to PW1, during the delivery of his wife, the accused had negligently and improperly used vacuum extractor and forceps and due to such gross negligence and CRA No. 203/08 **:-8-:** rashness in using the instrument, there occurred fatal rupture of the uterus and thus his wife was having pain and bleeding and consequently died at 5.20 a.m on 8.12.95. PW 1 has also stated that, himself and his relatives requested the accused to take his wife to another hospital for better treatment, but the accused assured that the complaint with respect to the physical health of the wife of the complainant would be redressed within a short time and therefore, she need not be taken to any other hospital. When PW1 was examined, Ext. P1 refer notice, Ext.P2 FI Statement, Ext.P3 Postmortem certificate, Ext.P4 case sheet, Ext.P5 OP book, Ext.P6 reply notice to the accused, Ext.P7 refer report were identified by PW1. 9. PW2 is a neighbour to PW1 and according to her, after the delivery, the wife of the complainant was removed to post delivery hall. She had also deposed that the wife of the accused was admitted in the hospital on 27.11.95 and after 4 - 5 days there was pain and she had delivered a still born child and there was bleeding after the delivery. It is her further case that the complaint regarding the bleeding brought to the notice of the doctor and the accused replied to them that the patient CRA No. 203/08 **:-9-:** was given medicine brought from Germany and the complaint will be cured. According to PW2, the reason for the death of the wife of the complainant is the oozing of blood. 10. It was PW3, who conducted the postmortem and issued Ext.P3 postmortem certificate. When PW3 was examined, he had deposed in terms of what contained in Ext.P3 post mortem certificate and, according to him, the death was due to the complications following rupture of gravid uterus. PW4 was the then Radiologist attached to the Radiology Diagnostic Department in the Alappuzha Medical College and he was the Assistant Professor. During the chief examination, when he was asked after showing Ext.P3 that whether injury No.3 could be detected and realised through scanning, he answered positively. When he was asked whether internal bleeding could be detected through scanning, he said that , they could find out the fluid inside and they could not say whether it was blood or something else and he had further stated that the exact location of the fluid in the uterus could also be detected. PW4 has also stated that, in general, 100% accuracy cannot be claimed in scanning and it cannot be general. The defence CRA No. 203/08 **:-10-:** put to him that, whether he could not say that the patient was fit to move for scanning and his answer was that, it could be decided by the concerned doctor. PW4 was further questioned that, considering the size of injury No.3, the remedy open was to remove the uterus, and his answer was positive. According to him, he gave a positive answer , on the basis of his knowledge as a Radiologist. 11. PW5 was the then medical officer of the KVM hospital where the wife of the appellant/complainant undergone operation and treatment for delivery. When PW5 was examined, Ext.P2 series (37 sheets) marked through him. Ext.P3 OP book is also marked through PW5. During cross examination, he had deposed that treatment was given to the patient as noted in the case sheet. 12. PW6 is another expert examined by the complainant to substantiate his case against the accused. PW6 at that time was working as Professor and Head of the Department of Gynaecology in Amritha hospital of medical science. During her chief examination she had stated that she retired as Professor of Gynaecology, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. CRA No. 203/08 **:-11-:** During the chief examination, Ext.P3 postmortem certificate was shown to her. According to her, the death was due to complications followed by rupture of gravid uterus. She explained, “gravid uterus means uterus which carries a baby or pregnancy”. To a question put to her as how injury No.3 can occur and whether the injuries happened while baby was inside, her answer was, “I cannot definitely say so”. According to her, Injury No.3 can occur due to so many causes and she explained the same. According to her, if there is delay or a big baby being delivered, i.e., more than natural contraction occurring due to medicines such as Oxiflour or in a multigravid, i.e., person who delivered more time or simultaneous without giving medicine spontaneously ,it may occur if the uterus is already weak due to past injuries or following instrumental delivery by forceps or vacuum application. If the criteria are not satisfied or even satisfied, it may occur if baby is having abnormality. She had also deposed in an unequivocal language that, in such cases, instrumentation are to be done. Vacuum extract or forceps used for delivery of the baby through normal passage or through vagina. She answered CRA No. 203/08 **:-12-:** positively to a question put to her that, whether these instruments were used without satisfying the criteria, these injuries could be caused. She had also deposed that , Episiotomy means enlarging vaginal opening or orifice to facilitate easy delivery of baby and avoid injuries to perineum and adjacent structures. During chief examination, she was asked that, whether an experienced doctor who attended the delivery could easily identify rupture, and her answer was that , all ruptures may not be identified immediately. Then she was further questioned as to what was the clinical symptom of understanding of rupture and , her answer was that, that depends upon time of rupture. Sometimes without any pain, rupture can occur. She had also deposed that, during delivery, patient would be having pain, and after rupture, pain would disappear, and then shock occurs with rapid pulse. Patient would be pale and pressure would be decreased depending upon internal bleeding. 13. During cross examination of PW6, she was asked that, as per case sheets whether all criteria were fulfilled before instrumental delivery? She said, no, it is not stated full CRA No. 203/08 **:-13-:** dilation , part is only stated. She deposed that, bleeding from vagina is noted, though it is not stated in the full dialation, only part is stated in the case sheet. She had deposed that bleeding from vagina is noted as, after the delivery. She had also deposed that, in the postmortem certificate, rupture was noted in posterior wall, and she had further admitted that, that means, rupture on back of uterus. According to PW6, such posterior wall rupture cannot be easily diagnosed as in the case of normal rupture. 14. As I indicated earlier, from the side of the defence, DW1 was examined. At the time of examination of DW1, she was working as the Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Government Medical College, Calicut and she claimed, which is not disputed , that she was the senior-most among the Gynecologist working in Government Medical Colleges, Kerala. She had deposed that, during the year 1995, Colour Doppler test was not established in Kerala, which was introduced only during the year 1997. According to DW1, rupture can be caused due to many reasons. DW1 has also deposed that posterior wall rupture is difficult to diagnose. She CRA No. 203/08 **:-14-:** had also deposed that , as per the case sheet, all available treatment was given to the patient, and according to her, no negligence is found on the part of the doctor as per the case sheet. 15. During cross examination of DW1, it is brought out that, there could be vaginal bleeding or excessive vaginal bleeding symptom occur before labour or during labour. She has also stated that, if it is an incomplete rupture, this symptom may not be clinically evident. It is put to her that, if an experienced doctor like DW1, who use sufficient clinical sense, whether the rupture could be detected. Though she said positively, she said that, posterior rupture is very difficult to diagnose often. She was again asked that, even if foetal heart is not there, will an experienced Gynecologist conduct caesarean, she answered that, not in all cases. 16. The trial court, after considering the above evidence and materials, concluded that, the complainant is not in a position to substantiate as to who had actually applied the instruments, and, the expert doctors opined that in a condition similar to the case of the deceased , instrumentation was the CRA No. 203/08 **:-15-:** only course open for a Gynecologist and thus, the trial court has held that, the complainant has miserably failed to prove the allegation against the accused and accordingly, the accused was found not guilty of the offence alleged under section 304-A of the IPC and she is acquitted of that offence, under section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 17. Mr. J.Omprakash, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial court is wrong in acquitting the accused, in spite of the admission of the accused that she used the instrument for the delivery, for the reason that the complainant failed to prove as to who used the instrument. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, in the light of the evidence of PW3 - Dr P.Babu, who conducted postmortem, the death was due to the negligence of the accused, since PW3 had noted the rupture in the uterus. The counsel also relying upon the evidence of PW4 - Dr.Balakrishnan, the Radiologist, has argued that the accused could have detected the rupture in the uterus , but due to the negligence of the accused, she failed to detect the same and therefore, the findings of the court below are incorrect and liable to be set aside. It is also the submission CRA No. 203/08 **:-16-:** of the learned counsel that in view of Section 106 of the evidence Act, it was for the accused to explain as to what happened inside the labour room and who used the instruments etc. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention placed reliance upon the decision in **Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab** (2005(3) KLT 965 (SC). 18. On the other hand, Sri Pirappancode V.S.Sudhir, the learned counsel for the Ist respondent/accused, after taking me through Sec.313 Cr.P.C statement of the accused and also the evidence of PW5 and DW1, submitted that those evidence are sufficient to show that the accused had discharged her duty as a doctor with utmost care and responsibility and no negligence can be drawn against the accused considering the various steps taken by her towards the delivery of the wife of the complainant. According to the learned counsel, the various steps adopted by the accused and the treatment given by her would show that, being a Gynaecologist, what all expected and possible to do, had been done by the accused. The learned Counsel for the Ist respondent also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra and he had also cited another CRA No. 203/08 **:-17-:** decision of the Hon'be Apex Court in **V.Kishan Rao** v. **Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital** {(2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 513}. 19. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Ist respondent. I have also perused the judgment of the trial court impugned in this appeal. I have scrutinized the evidence and materials available on record. In the light of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the Ist respondent and in the light of the evidence and materials on record, the question to be considered is whether the trial court is justified in its finding and acquitting the accused and whether the appellant has succeeded in making out any exceptional and substantial case so as to interfere with such findings and order of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused. 20. At the outset, according to me, it is to be noted that the case of the appellant/complainant has to be examined in the light of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in **Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab** (2005 3 KLT 965) CRA No. 203/08 **:-18-:** (SC) and in view of the decision reported in **V.Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital (** 2010 5 SCC 513) so as to find out whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing his allegation of medical negligence against the accused and consequently, whether the appellant has succeeded in making out any exceptional case or substantial reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court or to show that the impugned judgment is perverse, so as to to set aside the judgment and to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused. 21. I have already referred to the allegation of the complainant against the accused and the defence advanced by the accused and also referred to the evidence and materials on record. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that the specific case advanced by the defence is that, the wife of the complainant consulted the accused for the first time in the month of September 1995 and that too was with a request for abortion and at that time, foetus was more than 7 months old. According to the defence, that request for abortion was declined and the patient was having severe anaemic and she was given CRA No. 203/08 **:-19-:** injection for anaemia and that was corrected. But thereafter the patient contacted the accused only on 29.10.95 though she was advised to come within 15 days. But she did not turn up for the delivery when the expected delivery was on 25[th] November, she came only on 27[th] November 1995. Thus it is beyond dispute that the patient was admitted on 27.5.95. The available evidence shows that on 4.12.95, the patient gave birth to a stillborn child. As noted in Ext.P3, the reason for the death was rupture of gravid uterus. The case sheet shows that the vacuum extract was applied at 8 p.m., and at 8.15 p.m. the same was failed. As per the records, it would show that at 8.30 p.m., the said fact was reported to the accused. It is thereafter, only at 9 p.m. the accused contacted the patient and before that, vacuum extract was applied by the duty doctor and during that period, the accused was not in the labour room. The case records shows that before 9 p.m. the accused had seen the patient at 5 p.m. on 4.12.95. Thus the records would further show that, before contacting the accused, and after full dilation at 7.15 p.m., till 8.30 p.m., delivery was not happened. It was under the above circumstances the duty doctor applied CRA No. 203/08 **:-20-:** vacuum extract and on failure of the same, the duty doctor contacted the accused at 9 p.m. According to the defence, when the doctor examined the patient, the foetal heart beat could not be located and at that time, the only option was to apply outlet forceps for the delivery and thus the delivery was effected. According to the defence, since the child was not crying, the Anesthetist had attempted to resuscitate. According to me, the evidence of PW6 and DW1, experts in this field, shows that, delivery by applying outlet forceps was the only option left with the accused in the given facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the clinical conditions of the patient. It is also brought on record that the delivery of the lady was the third one and there is a long gap of 13 years between the second child and the third pregnancy and the lady was anaemic. Besides the above health conditions of the wife of the complainant, it is also relevant to note that the accused had decided to effect delivery by using outlet forceps at about 9.10 p.m. that too after failure of vacuum extractor applied by the duty doctor at about 8 p.m. on the same day. Absolutely, there is no positive evidence to show that the rupture in the uterus was caused as a result of outlet CRA No. 203/08 ## **:-21-:** forceps applied by the accused. The evidence of PW6 and DW1, who are the experts, show that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, there was no option other than to conduct the delivery through instrumentation. On a conjoint reading of the evidence of PW4, PW6 and DW1, one can safely come into a conclusion that it is practically impossible to detect rupture on the posterior part of the uterus. So According to me, the appellant/complainant has miserably failed to prove positively with sufficient evidence and materials that the accused had rashly and negligently used the outlet forceps or decided to conduct delivery through instrumentation without due care and medical caution. It is also relevant to note that, even according to PW1 - the complainant, when they approached the accused for taking the patient to some other hospital, they were told by the accused that medicines brought from Germany was being administered over the patient and there was no necessity to take her. The defence had denied the version of the complainant and she contacted the accused and requested for taking his wife to the other hospital. Therefore, the fact beyond dispute is that the wife of the complainant was given medicines brought CRA No. 203/08 **:-22-:** from Germany to salvage her health complaint and complications. 22. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that going by the evidence of PW4, PW6 and DW1 it can be seen further that, as an experienced doctor, what all expected to do in this case has been done by the accused. DW1 in an unequivocal language has stated that as per the case sheet, all available treatment was given to the patient. Though DW1 was subjected to lengthy cross examination, nothing brought on record to discredit her version or bringing out any fact or to show that there was negligence from the side of the accused. In this juncture, it is pertinent to note that during the chief examination of PW6 , which I have already referred to, she had deposed as to how the injury No.3 can be occurred. But the complainant has miserably failed to establish that, injury No.3 was caused due to the negligence of the accused, under any of the situations pointed out by PW6. In the light of the evidence of PW6, and the fact that the patient had already delivered two children and the long gap of 13 years between the delivery of second child and third pregnancy, are also factors that strengthen the case of the CRA No. 203/08 **:-23-:** defence and further shows that the complainant has miserably failed to establish its allegation beyond any reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the said facts probablise the version that the cause for rupture in the uterus was due to those factors as well. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the rupture found in the uterus can be caused as a result of applying outlet forceps in the given facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, when the rupture was subsequently detected on the posterior part of the uterus. Thus on examination of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, according to me, the case of the complainant and the evidence and materials on record are not sufficient to withstand the text laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in **Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab** (2005 3 KLT 965)(SC) cited supra, to fix criminal liability on the Ist respondent/accused on the allegation of medical negligence. 23. In this juncture it is relevant to note that , Sri Pirappacode V.S.Sudhir, the counsel for the Ist respondent, after having invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in **V.Kishan Rao's** case, {(2010) 5 SCC 513}, submitted CRA No. 203/08 **:-24-:** that the complainant in the present case has miserably failed to prove the allegation in the required degree of negligence in criminal cases, especially in the light of the allegation of negligence attributed against the accused. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the V.Kishan Rao's case, (cited supra) in paragraph 27, has held: “The question of medical negligence came up before his Court in a decision in Mathew, in the context of Section 304-A of the Penal Code, 1860 Lahoti, C.J.. speaking for the unanimous three-Judge Bench in Mathew, made a clear distinction between degree of negligence in criminal law and civil law where normally liability for damages is fastened. His Lordship held that to constitute negligence in criminal law the essential ingredient of mens rea cannot be excluded and in doing so, His Lordship relied on the speech of Lord Diplock in R.v.Lawrence. The learned chief Justice further opined that in order to pronounce on criminal negligence it has to be established that the rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard in which injury was most likely imminent. The neat formulation by Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (All ER at p.556) wherein the learned Law Lord delineated the concept of negligence in civil and criminal law differently was accepted by this Court.” So a scrutiny of the evidence and materials available in the CRA No. 203/08 **:-25-:** record, in the light of the dictum laid down by the Apex court in the above two decisions, it can be seen that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case and to satisfy the test and criteria laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in **Jacob Mathew's case (2005(3) KLT 965(SC)** and to establish the required standard of degree of negligence as held in **Kishan Rao's** case. Thus, according to me, the learned Magistrate is fully correct in his finding and acquitting the accused. 24. The trial court, as I indicated earlier, after a thorough scrutiny of the evidence and materials on record, and after assigning various reasons, refused to accept the case of the complainant and acquitted the accused. In a recent decision in **State of Rajasthan v. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Lal** (2012 (4) Supreme 72), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: “In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence.” On an examination of the facts and circumstances involved in CRA No. 203/08 **:-26-:** the present case, applying the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I am of the view that the appellant in the present case has miserably failed to make out exceptional cases or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal or any ground to hold that the judgment of the trial court is perverse. In the decision in **State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta** (JT 2011(13) SC 467), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while exercising the appellate jurisdiction, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only when the findings of the court below and order of acquittal are contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or view taken is not a possible view. In **Ranjitham v. Basavaraj** (JT 2011 (13) SC 480), the Hon'ble Apex court has held that, the court should not, normally, disturb the order of acquittal unless the findings are perverse. Thus, no ground is made out in terms of any of the decisions cited supra to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court. In the light of the above discussion and the findings , I am of the view that this appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. CRA No. 203/08 **:-27-:** Accordingly the above appeal is dismissed. **V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE** **kvm/-** CRA No. 203/08 **:-28-:**