Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 362 of 2018 Applicant :- Shri Hari Krishna Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant- appellant on the application seeking leave to appeal and perused the record.
The present criminal appeal has been filed along with an application for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Agra in S.T. Nos. 75/2017 and 76/2017 whereby accused-respondent, namely, Kishan Chauhan has been acquitted for the offences under Section 307 IPC & 3/25 of the Arms Act, P.S. Etmaddaula, District Agra.
Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly pressed the application with the contention that the prosecution evidence has not been appreciated by the court concerned in its correct perspective. He has submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial judge is against the evidence on record. He has next submitted that the learned trial judge has committed a patent error of law and ignored the material evidence on record while holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused respondents beyond the reasonable doubt.
We have perused the judgment and order dated 27.07.2018 and the findings as recorded therein.
The court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded a number of findings and the relevant portion of which are being extracted herein as under:
blh izdkj ih0MCY;w0&8 Mk0 ,l0ch0 'kekZ us vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd tks vkXus;kL= ls pksVsa vk;ha gSa og NjjsZ ls vk ldrh gSa ysfdu og 315 cksj ds reaps ls ugha vk ldrhA oSls Hkh 315 cksj ds reaps ls ,d txg rks pksV vk ldrh gS ysfdu gkFk ij 40 lseh0 dh jxM+ ugha vk ldrhA blds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh vko';d gS fd ;fn reapk 15 fnu ckn cjken fd;k tk jgk gS rks vfHk;kstu dks ;g lkfcr djuk pkfg;s Fkk fd xksyh blh repa s ls pyk;h x;h vkSj cjken jkaxk blh reaps ls pykbZ xbZ xksyh dk va'k Fkk] ysfdu foospd us Lo;a ekuk gS fd reapk ijh{k.k gsrq fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk tkWp gsrq ugha Hkstk vkSj MkDVj us Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd tks pksVsa Fkha og 315 cksj ds reaps ls ugha vk ldrha cfYd ;g dgk gS fd pqVSy ds ftl izdkj dh pksVsa Fkha og iVk[ks ls vkuk lEHko FkhaA bl izdkj mijksDr ih0MCY;w0&1 gfjd`".k dk c;ku ijLij fojks/kkHkklh gS vkSj ?kk;y ih0MCY;w0&1 gfjd`".k ds dFku dk leFkZu mldh pksVksa dk ijh{k.k djus okys ih0MCY;w0&8 Mk0 ,l0ch0 'kekZ ds dFku ls ugha gksrkA bl izdkj mijksDr lk{khx.k dh lk{; ls vfHk;kstu dFkkud lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA blh izdkj oknh eqdnek }kjk tc izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fy[kkbZ x;h rc oknh eqdnek ds lkFk vejs'k 'kekZ] gsrjke oekZ] jRus'k fldjokj o jkeckcw lkFk Fks] tSlk fd th0Mh0 ua0&62 le; 23-30 cts fnuakfdr 5&7&2016 Fkkuk ,Rekn~nkSyk ds voyksdu ls Li"V gksrk gSA bu lHkh oknh ds gejkgh;ksa us vius c;ku esa eksVjlkbfdy pkyd dk uke r:.k rkSej crk;k gS ysfdu tc eqdnek fy[kk tk jgk Fkk rc buds } kjk eksVjlkbfdy pkyd dk uke ugha crk;k x;k cfYd vKkr eksVjklkbfdy pkyd ds f[kykQ eqdnek fy[kk;k x;k vkSj Fkkus dh th0Mh0 ds vuqlkj mDr pkjksa O;fDr eqdnek fy[kkrs le; Fkkus ij gh ekStwn Fks ysfdu ml le; vKkr O;fDr dk uke fdlh us ugha crk;kA blds vfrfjDr oknh eqdnek dgrk gS fd og vius cM+s HkkbZ ds ?kj ls ckrphr djds tSls gh fudyk vkSj vfHk;qDr fd'ku pksSgku us mldks xksyh ekj nh tc fd ih0MCY;w0&2 jRus'k fldjokj ftldks cM+k HkkbZ gksuk dgk x;k gS] og dgrk gS fd og [kkuk [kkdj ckgj Vgy jgk Fkk vkSj mlus fd'ku pksSgku o r:.k rksSej dks eksVjlkbfdy ij pDdj yxkrs ns[kk FkkA ;fn ih0MCY;w0&2 jRus'k fldjokj ckgj Vgy jgs Fks rks oknh eqdnek gfjd`".k mlls edku ds vanj dSls ckr dj ldrs gSaA ;g nksuksa rF; vkil esa fojks/kkHkklh gSaA blh izdkj ih0MCY;w0&1 gfjd`".k dgrk gS fd ** eSaus ?kVuk dh lwpuk rqjUr 100 uEcj ij nh FkhA** tcfd ih0MCY;w0&3 gsrjke oekZ dgrk gS fd ** ?kVuk dh lwpuk eSaus iqfyl dks nh FkhA** bl ;g nksuksa dFku fojks/kkHkklh gSaA bl izdkj cpko i{k dh rjQ ls ijhf{kr djk;s x;s Mh0MCY;w0&1 rkjk flag ds bl dFku dks cy feyrk gS fd oknh i{k ,oa vfHk;qDr i{k ds e/; iwoZ ls jaft'k Fkh vkSj blh jaft'k ds dkj.k vfHk;qDr dks gLrxr izdj.k esa lafyIr fd;k x;k gksA vr% vfHk;qDr fd'ku pkSgku ds fo:) /kkjk& 307@34 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr fojfpr n.Muh; vkjksi lansg ls ijs lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA blds vfrfjDr tgkW rd vfHk;qDr ls vkXus;kL= ,d vnn reapk 315 cksj o ,d ftUnk dkjrwl dh cjkenxh dk iz'u gS] bl lEcU/k esa ih0MCY;w0&5 ,l0vkbZ0 eqUukyky ;kno us viuh ftjg esa dgk gS fd cjken 'kqnk eky repa k] [kks[kk dkjrlw ] jkxa k tks mlus cjken fd;k Fkk og vkt mlds lkeus U;k;ky; esa ugha gSA vkxs mlus dgk gS fd mls oknh eqdnek ;k xokg us ;g ugha crk;k Fkk fd reaps ls fdlus xksyh pykbZ FkhA Lo;a dgk fd tks ?kVuk LFky ls jkaxk feyk og 315 cksj dk izrhr gks jgk FkkA blh izdkj ih0MCY;w0&6 dka0 fnus'k dqekj us viuh ftjg esa dgk gS fd ** QnZ esjs lkeus ugha cukbZ xbZ FkhA cjken 16 'kqnk repa k rFkk dkjrlw esjs le{k lhy ugha fd;k x;k FkkA eSua s ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fy[kus ls iwoZ c.My [kksydj ugha ns[kk FkkA gkW can c.My esa reapk gksuk izrhr gksrk FkkA eSaus reaps dks tkWp gsrq dgha ugha Hkstk FkkA** blh izdkj ih0MCY;w0&10 dka0 nhisUnz dqekj us viuh ftjg esa dgk gS fd ** vfHk;qDr us ge lHkh iqfyl ikVhZ ij dksbZ Qk;j ugha fd;k Fkk u gh iz;kl fd;k FkkA** vkxs dgk gS fd **eq>s ;g tkudkjh ugha gS fd cjken 'kqnk eky tkWp ds fy;s Hkstk x;k Fkk ;k ughaA** bl izdkj QnZ cjkenxh izn'kZ d&5 dh ckcr mijksDr lk{khx.k ds c;ku ijLij fojks/kkHkklh gSaA vr% QnZ cjkenxh izn'kZ d&5 ij fo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us vxyk ;g Hkh rdZ fn;k gS fd Lohd`fr iznku djus okys ftyk eSftLVs ªV ds }kjk reapk o dkjrwlksa ds voyksdu ds fcuk Lohd`fr nh xbZ gS tks fd fof/k dh n`f"V esa oS/k ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa eSaus] vfHk;qDr fd'ku pkSgku ds fo:) vfHk;kstu pykus gsrq nh xbZ vuqKk izn'kZ d&13] dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ij vfHk;kstu dh rjQ ls ijhf{kr djk;s x;s fdlh lk{kh us vius lEiw.kZ c;ku esa ;g dgha ugha dgk gS fd ftykf/kdkjh egksn; ds } kjk reapksa o dkjrwlksa ds voyksdu djus ds ckn eqdnek pykus dh Lohd`fr nh xbZ FkhA blh izdkj vuqKk izn'kZ d&13 esa vuqKk nsus okys ftyk eSftLVzsV vkxjk ds } kjk ,slk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gS fd muds }kjk vuqKk nsrs le; cjken reaps o dkjrwlksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ftykf/kdkjh tSls egRoiw.kZ in ij cSBs O;fDr }kjk ljljh esa vuqKk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS] tcfd /kkjk& 39 vkElZ ,DV esa vfHk;kstu pyk;s tkus dh vuqKk nsus ds iwoZ ftykf/kdkjh dk ;g nkf;Ro gS fd og bl lanHkZ esa cjken vlykg dk voyksdu djds ;g lqfuf'pr djsa fd mDr vlykg pyus ;ksX; gS Hkh ;k ughaA gLrxr ekeys esa nh xbZ vuqKk esa dgha ;g Li"V ugha gksrk fd ftykf/kdkjh egksn; }kjk vuqKk nsus ls iwoZ cjken vlykg dk fujh{k.k djds mlds pkyw gkyr esa gksuk lqfuf'pr dj fy;k x;k FkkA ;g vfHk;kstu dh ,d cM+h deh gSA ,slh n'kk esa vfHk;qDr fd'ku pkSgku ds fo:) /kkjk&25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu eqdnek pykus dh Lohd`fr ftyk eftLV zsªV us Lo;a vk;q/k o dkjrwlksa dks ns[ks fcuk nh gS vkSj U;k;fu.k;Z 1994 , 0,0lh0 ¼lh0vkj0 ½i`"B&86 jkes'oj cuke jkT; esa ;g fl/nkar izfrikfnr g S fd tc ftyk eftLV ªV us Lohd`fr fn;s tkus ds le; fjokYoj o dkjrwl dk voyksdu ugha fd;k rks ,slh Lohd`fr dks oS/k Lohd`fr ugha ekuk tk;sxk vkSj ,slh Lohd`fr ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk& 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fy;k x;k izlaKku voS/k gksxkA bl izdkj mDr fooj.k rFkk mDr fof/k n`"Vkar ij iw.kZ fo'okl dj eSa 17 bl er dk gwW fd izLrqr dsl esa vfHk;qDr fd'ku pkSgku ds fo:) /kkjk& 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu eqdnek pykus dh Lohd`fr reapk o dkjrwlksa ds fcuk voyksdu ds nh xbZ gS tks mijksDr fu.kZ; dh fof/k O;oLFkk ds vkyksd esa fof/k dh n`f"V esa oS/k Lohd`fr ugha gS vkSj ,slh Lohd`fr ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk& 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fy;k x;k izlaKku oS/k ugha gS vkSj vfHk;qDr fd'ku pkSgku ds fo:) /kkjk& 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr fojfpr n.Muh; vkjksi lansg ls ijs lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA mDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij ;g U;k;ky; bl er dh gS fd vfHk;qDr fd'ku pksSgku /kkjk& 307@34 Hkk0na0la0 ,oa /kkjk& 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vkjksi ls lansg dk ykHk ikdj nks"keqDr gksus ;ksX; 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) 1 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 counsel for the appellant 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 more than 4 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2014.
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 :- 26.09.2018 Anand