Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 310 of 2018
Applicant :- Dinesh Chandra Pathak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Shiv Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2018 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court Bhadohi, Gyanpur by means of which all the accused/respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 307/34/506 IPC.
We have perused the impugned judgment. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the concerned court has recorded categorical findings after perusing the entire evidence on record. Keeping in view the contention as has been raised at Bar of this Court the first information report was lodged by Amarnath Pathak who subsequently expired and the present appellant is the son of Amarnath Pathak. The Court while disclosing the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 who claims to be an eye-witnesses. The Court has observed their testimony herein as under:-
,& bl lk{kh us vius izfrijh{kk es dFku fd;k gS fd ?kVukLFky ij eSaus ?
kVuk ds le; jRus'k ikBd dks ugha ns[kk Fkk u igpkuk gh FkkA jRus'k ikBd dfFkr ?kVuk esa ugha FksA vkSj u gh yydkjs FksA eSaus vius iwoZ c;ku esa jRus'k ikBd }kjk yydkjus dh ckr yksxksa ds dgus o nckooa'k dga fn;k Fkk eSaus foospd dks jRus'k ikBd }kjk yydkjus dh ckr ugha crk;h FkhA jRus'k ikBd dk bl ? kVuk ls dksbZ ysuk nsuk ugha gSA ch& bl lk{kh us vius izfrijh{kk es dFku fd;k gS fd dfFkr ?kVukLFky ij jRus'k ikBd dks eSaus ugha ns[kk Fkk u igpkuk FkkA jRus'k ikBd ?kVukLFky ij ugha FkkA jRus'k ikBd funksZ"k gS bl eqdnesa es xyr Qalk;s x;s gSa U;k;ky; } kjk /kkjk 82 dh izfdz;k ds ckn Hkh lk{kh cCyw mifLFkr ugha vk;k ftlds dkj.k mldh izfri`PNk iw.kZ ugha gks ldhA It has further to be appreciated that PW-2 in his testimony has stated herein as under:-
lh& njksxk th us eq>ls ?kVuk ds ckjs esa iwN rkN fd;k FkkA eSa vkt vnkyr esa tks c;ku ns jgk gwa ogh c;ku eSa njksxk th dks fn;k FkkA esjs 'kjhj ij tks diMk Fkk ?kVuk ds le; xksyh yxus ds ckn ml diMks ij [kwu yx x;k FkkA njksxk th us mu diMks dks eq>ls ugha ekaxk FkkA eS diMkas dks ns jgk FkkA rks njksxk th us ugha fy;kA eSa viuh pksVkas ls lEcaf/kr ,Dljs IyVs vkSj ,Dljs fjikVZs ns jgk Fkk ijUrq njksxk th ugha fy;kA ftls eSa vkt vnkyr esa nkf[ky dj jgk gwaA njksxk th ?kVuk dh foospuk lgh <ax ls ugha dj jgs FksA And thus the Court has concluded herein as under that there are a vast contradiction in testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 that previous enmity is existed and the Court has observed in this regard:-
ih0MCyw0 2 us viuh eq[; i`PNk esa gh jaft'k gksus dh ckr dk dFku fd;k gS vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls vius c;ku 313 esa ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mUgas jaft'k o'k >wBk Qalk;k x;k gS vFkkZr nksukas gSA i{kksa dks jaft'k iwoZorhZ gksuk Lohd`r The Court has further concluded herein as under:-
ih0 MCyw0 1 o ih0 MCyw0 2 ds c;ku esa fojks/kkHkk"k vfHk;qDrx.k dh mifLFkr ij gSA ih0 MCyw 1 us vius c;ku dFku fd;k gS fd txnh'k flag dh V;wccsy esa cSBs Fks tcfd ih0 MCyw 2 us c;ku fn;k gS fd jkLrs esa vfHk;qDr jketue ,oe <sybZ flag feys tcfd nksukas ?kVuk ds p{kqn'khZ lk{kh vius dks crk, gSA ;fn txnh'k flag dh V;wcosy esa cSBus dh ckr Lohdkj dh tkos rks pwfd ih0 MCyw 1 ih0 MCyw0 2 ds ihNs vk jgk FkkA vr% og vfHk;qDrkas dk ckn esa gh ns[kk gksxk tc mlus ns[kk rks vfHk;qDr txnh'k flag dh dksBjh cSBs FksA ,slh n'kk esa pksVfgy dks os xksyh dSls ekj ldrs gSA blh izdkj ls ;fn ih0 MCyw0 2 dh ckr eku yh tkos fd vfHk;qDrx.k mls [kM+s feys rks mlds firk dh ckr vlR; gksrh gSA blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd nksuksa lkf{k;kas esa dkbs Z vlR; dFku dj jgk gSA ih0 MCyw0 2 dh vksj ls vius dFku ds leFkZu esa ,Dljs fjiksVZ ,oe ,Dljs IysV nkf[ky dh x;h gSA mDr fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj ,Dljs fnukad 6-11-2000 dks fd;k x;k gSA ih0 MCyw0 2 viuh izfri`PNk esa fnukad 6-11-2000 dks ,Dljs gksus ls badkj fd;k gS dFku fd;k gS fd ,Dljs fnukad 5-11-2000 dks gqvk FkkA ih0 MCyw 2 us viuh izfri`PNk esa dFku fd;k gS fd NjkZ mldh tka/k ls Hknksgh esa fudkyk x;k FkkA tcfd ih0 MCyw0 3 us dksbZ NjkZ fudkyus ls badkj fd;k gS rFkk viuh izfri`PNk esa dFku fd;k gS fd dksbZ pksVfgy dk ckgj ls fn[kk;h ugh ns jgk FkkA vr% ih0 MCyw0 2 dk c;ku bl rF; ij fd NjkZ Hknksgh esa fudkyk x;k Fkk fo'oluh; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ih0 MCyw0 2 us jRus'k dk ?kVuk ij gksus ls vius c;ku fnukad 20-12-2009 dks bl vk/kkj ij badkj fd;k gS fd eSaus mudk uke ncko esa crk;k FkkA vr% bl rF; ls badkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd og bu vfHk;qDrkas dk uke ml fnu vius lk{; esa fcuk ncko ds crk;k gSA vr% bl lk{kh ds c;ku ij iw.kZ fo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprh gS fd vfHk;kstu viuk ekeyk vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ;qfDr ;qDr lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa lQy ugha gqvk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k jketue flag] <sybZ flag ] txnh'k flag] jRus'k ikBd vkjksfir vkjksi /kkjk 307@34 ]506 Hkk0 n0 fo0 esa nks"keqDr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA In view of the facts and circumstances of the case no illegality or perversity has been pointed out with the findings as has been recorded by the court concerned, no case for interference has been made out.
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.
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.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 18.8.2018 Vikram