Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 352 of 2018 Applicant :- Naznee Khatoon Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Mishra,Kapil Kumar,Sandhya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.6.2018 by means of which the accused-respondent has been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, District Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 329 of 2018 (State Vs. Addoo) arising out of Case Crime No. 1515 of 2017 of the offences under section 302 IPC.
The case of the prosecution as set up in the F.I.R. is as under:
vfHk;kstu i{k dk dFku la{ksi esa bl izdkj gS fd oknh eqdnek fQjkst vkye fuoklh 25 QqVk jksM N;kjlh xyh ua0 3] uks;Mk lsDVj 63] xkSrecq) uxj }kjk Fkkuk/;{k] Fkkuk dfouxj ftyk xkft;kckn ij ,d rgjhj bl vk'k; dh nh fd ^^ esjk NksVk HkkbZ bejkst mez 35 o"kZ csuh izlkn t;iqfj;k psfjVscy VªLV 'kkgiqj] cEgsVk xkft;kckn ds Ldwy okyh fcfYMax ds igyh eathy ij fnukad 03@04&10&17 dks le; djhc 22-00 cts [kkuk [kkdj lks;k Fkk] fdlh vKkr us mldh gR;k dj nhA eq>s ,d fj'rsnkj us lqcg Qksu djds lwpuk nhA ^^ The Court has given cogent reasons while giving the verdict of acquittal and asmuch as P.W.2, 4 and 5 have not supported the case of prosecution and they have been declared hostile. As far as P.W.3 is concenred, the trial court has stated as under:
cpko i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk rdZ fn;k x;k gS fd vfHk;kstu lk{kh ih0 MCyw0&2] 4 o 5 }kjk vfHk;kstu dFkkud dk leFkZu ugh fd;k x;k gS] ftl dkj.k mUgs i{knzksgh lkfcr fd;k x;kA lk{kh ih0 MCyw0&3 eUtj vyh ,d flfoy bUthfu;j gS ftuds lkeus e`rd ds 'kjhj dks lhy losZ eksgj dj iksLVekVZe gsrq Hkstk x;k Fkk] buds }kjk Hkh viuh eq[; ijh{kk ,oa ftjg esa ,slk dksbZ dFku ugh fd;k x;k fd mlds lkeus vfHk;qDr }kjk eks0 gejkst dh gR;k dh x;h gksA ih0 MCyw0 &1 e`rd ds HkkbZ gS] ftlus ?kVuk ?kfVr gksrs ugh ns[kk vkSj vius HkkbZ bejkst dh e`R;q dh lwpuk Qksu ij fj'rsnkjk } kjk fn;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gSA ?kVuk ds le; vfHk;qDr dh ekStwnxh Hkh fdlh lk{; ls lkfcr ugh gSA bl izdkj fdlh Hkh lk{kh ds lk{; ls vfHk;qDr ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugha gSA bl izdkj fdlh Hkh lk{kh ds lk{; ls vfHk;qDr ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugh gSA vr% vfHk;qDr dks nks"keqDr fd;s tkus dh ;kpuk dh x;h gSA ih0 MCyw0&1 fQjkst vkye us ftjg es bl lk{kh us dFku fd;k gS fd ^^ essjs lkeus dksbZ dqYgkMh iqfyl dks ugha feyh FkhA esjs e`rd HkkbZ bejkst dh gR;k fdlus dh vkt rd dksbZ irk ugh pyk gSA esjs HkkbZ bejkst dh fdlh ls dksbZ jaft'k ugha FkhA ^^ mijksDr lk{khx.k dh lk{; ds foospu ls ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0 1 fQjkst vkye tks fd e`rd dk HkkbZ gS mUgksus viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa vius HkkbZ dh e`R;q dh lwpuk Qksu ij fj'rsnkj }kjk fn;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gS vkSj ftjg esa bl lk{kh }kjk mlds HkkbZ bejkst dh gR;k fdlus dh vkt rd dksbZ irk u yx ikus dk dFku fd;k gSA bl lk{kh us viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd mlds lkeus dqYgkMh iqfyl dks ugh feyh Fkh] ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ;g lk{kh ?kVuk ds le; ekStwn ?kVuk LFky ij ekStwn ugh Fkk vkSj u gh bls gR;k djus okys O;fDr ds ckjs esa dksbZ tkudkjh gSA oknh eqdnek us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa ;g Hkh dFku fd;k gS fd mlds HkkbZ fd fdlh vKkr O;fDr us gR;k dj nh Fkh rFkk ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ mlus Fkkus ij ntZ djk;hA lk{kh ih0 MCyw0&3 eUtj vyh ,d flfoy baUthfu;j gS ftuds lkeus e`rd ds 'kjhj dks lhy losZ eksgj dj iksLVekVZe gsrq Hkstk x;k Fkk] buds }kjk Hkh viuh eq[; ijh{kk ,oa ftjg es ,slk dksbZ dFku ugh fd;k x;k fd mlds lkeus vfHk;qDr }kjk eks0 bejkst dh gR;k dh x;h gksA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0 2] lk{kh la0 4 o lk{kh la0 5 us vius 'kiFk iw.kZ c;ku dh eq[; ijh{kk esa vfHk;kstu dFkkud dk leFkZu ugh fd;k gSA blfy;s bu rhuksa lkf{k;ks dks i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;kstu dFkkud ls ;g Li"V gS fd oknh ds HkkbZ dh fdlh vKkr O;fDr us gR;k dh gS] ijUrq oknh ,oa rF; ds vU; lkf{k;ksa }kjk oknh ds HkkbZ eks0 bejkst dh gR;k vfHk;qqDr vn~n }kjk dkfjr fd;k tkuk ugh crk;k x;k vkSj ,slk dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij miyC/k ugh gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gks fd vfHk;qDr }kjk oknh eqdnek ds HkkbZ eks0 bejkst dh gR;k dh x;h gksA bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k ekSf[kd ,oa nLrkosth lk{; ls ;g Li"V ugh gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr vnn }kjk oknh eqdnek ds HkkbZ eks bejkst dh gR;k dh x;h gks vkSj u gh ekSds ls cjken jDr jaftr dqYgkMh eqfYte dh fu'kkunsgh ij cjken gqbZ gS vkSj u gh vfHk;kstu ml dqYgkMh dk mi;ksx eqfYte ds }kjk fd;k tkuk viuh lk{; ls fl) dj ik;k gSA Lastly the trial court has held as under:
izLrqr ekeys ds foospd }kjk foospuk esa ykijokgh cjrh x;h gS vkSj vuqJqr lk{; o iqfyl ds le{k fd;s x;s eqfYte ds tqeZ bdckfy;s c;ku ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi i= izsf"kr dh x;h gS] ;g nksukss lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k fof/kd :i ls xzkg; ugh gS vkSj csgn detksj lk{; gSA foospd }kjk cjken dqYgkMh ls dksbZ fQaxj fizUV ysus dh dksbZ dk;Zokgh dh x;h vkSj uk gh fQaxj fizUV ysdj eqfYte ds fQaxj fizUV ls feyku dh dk;Zokgh foospd }kjk dh x;h gS] tks /kkjk 302 Hkk0 n0 l0 tSls t?kU; vijk/k esa ?kksj ykijokgh vkSj foospuk esa FkhFkyrk dk |ksrd 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.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court below is not possible and plausible thus the judgment of the court below cannot be interfered with by this Court only on account of the fact that another view is possible.
Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the court below and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by trial court is a perverse view.
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. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018/Manish Tripathi