Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 297 of 2018 Applicant :- Babadeen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2016 by means of which the accused respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Section 498A, 304B IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kharela, District Mahoba.
We have heard the counsel for the appellant at great length. We have perused the findings as has been recorded by the court concerned. The Court has very minutely and very elaborately discussed the evidence on record and thereafter has concluded hereinas under:
^^bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k lEiw.kZ lk{; ds ifj'khyu rFkk mlds vk/kkj ij fd;s x;s mijksDr fo'ys"k.k rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk bl lEcU/k esa n.M izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk&313 esa fn;s x;s Li"Vhdj.k ds vk/kkj ij ;g fu"d"kZ fudkys tkus ;ksX; gS fd e`rdk lqeu vius chekj firk oknh ih0 MCyw0&1 dks esjB tkdj u ns[k ikus ds dkj.k vR;Ur nq%[kh o {kqC/k Fkh vkSj blh nq%[k o {kksHk ds dkj.k volknxzLr gks tkus ds dkj.k ,dkUr ikdj mlus viuh llqjky esa dejk vUnj ls cUn dj vkRegR;k dj yh ftlds fy;s vfHk;qDrx.k dks nks"kh ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ;|fi ;g lgh gS fd e`rdk lqeu dh e`R;q mlds fookg ls 3 lky ds ckn gh vlkekU; ifjfLFkfr esa vkRegR;k ds dkj.k gqbZ gS vkSj bl izdkj Hkkjrh; n.M+ lafgrk dh /kkjk& 304& ch esa visf{kr fdlh fookfgrk dh fookg ls 7 o"kZ ds Hkhrj vlkekU; ifjfLFkfr esa e`R;q gksus dh 'krZ iwjh Hkh gks jgh gS fdUrq ek= blh vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k dks ngst e`R;q ds fy;s Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk &304& ch ds v/khu nks"kh ugha ekuk tk ldrk D;ksafd blds fy;s vko';d vU; 'krZ tSls e`R;q ds rRdky iwoZ mlds lkFk fdlh ngst dh ekax vkSj mlds lEcU/k esa mlds ifr ;k ifr ds fdlh ukrsnkj }kjk dwzjrk ;k mRihM+u fd;k tkuk ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs lkfcr ugha gks ldk gSA vr% ,slh n'kk esa i=koyh ij miyC/k lEiw.kZ nLrkosth o ekSf[kd lk{; ds mi;qZDr fo'ys"k.k ds mijkUr ;g fu"d"kZ fudkys tkus ;ksX; gS fd vfHk;kstu vius lqlaxr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lansg ls ijs ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k gjn;ky] cCcw] dkSf'kY;k] yhyk/kj o nsolju }kjk e`rdk lqeu o mlds ekrk& firk ls ngst dh ekax dh tkrh Fkh vkSj mDr ekax dh iwfrZ u gksus ij e`rdk dks ekufld o 'kkjhfjd :i ls izrkfM+r fd;k tkrk Fkk vkSj blh ls {kqC/k o nq%[kh gksdj e`rdk }kjk vkRegR;k dj yh x;hA rnuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk &304 &ch ds v/khu yxk;s x;s ngst e`R;q ds vkjksi ds fy;s fdlh Hkh vk/kkj ij nks"kh ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA Reference may be made to the recent judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors reported in 2018 (5) SCC 790 wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
11. Before we proceed further to peruse the finding of the High Court, it is relevant to discuss the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial court which has been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court should give due regard to the findings and the conclusions reached by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings itself. This principle has further been elucidated in the case of Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186, para 13, wherein this Court observed that: "The High Court will interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
12. It is not in dispute that the presumption of innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened against the acquitted accused by the judgment in his favor. [Vide Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 in para. 94].
27. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the prosecution was not able to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court should not have re-appreciated evidences in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities. No specific assertion could be proved regarding the role and involvement of the accused persons. Further, certain actions of the victim-respondents themselves are dubious, for instance admitting themselves later in a Multi-speciality hospital without proper cause. It has further come to our notice that respondents have already compromised and have executed a compromise deed to that extent, though the same is not the basis for our conclusion.
Reference may also be made to the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1961 SC 715, Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 09.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2011, Basappa Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 27.02.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2014, Ashok Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. Decided on 15.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2005, Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P. 2012 AIR SCW 2990 and Murugesan v. State through Inspector of Police reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5627.
Thus, in view of aforesaid consistent legal position as elaborated above and also in view of the fact that learned A.G.A. has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings so recorded in the impugned order, no case for interference has been made out.
It is an established position of law that if the court below has taken a view which is a possible view in a reasonable manner, then the same shall not be interfered with moreso in view of the fact that about 9 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2009.
After perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the trial court after a thorough marshalling of the facts of the case and a microscopic scrutiny of the evidence on record has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused respondents and the findings recorded by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence and supported by cogent reasons.
No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Manish Tripathi