Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 314 of 2018 Applicant :- Prabhuti Kumar Bajpai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Indra Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.7.2018 by means of which the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 304 IPC with the contention tht the prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond doubt, however, they have been convicted under Sections 147 and 323 IPC and have been sentenced accordingly.
The appeal has been filed being aggrieved against the acquittal of the accused-respondents for the offences under Section 304 IPC.
We have Sri Indra Mani Tripathi at great length and we have also perused the finding as recorded by the court concerned keeping in view the contention as has been placed by Sri Indra Mani Tripathi at the bar of this Court.
The Court has given cogent reasons for giving verdict of acquittal. The reasons are based on the basis of evidence on record. The relevant observation of the Court and the findings are being extracted herein below:
^^ih-MCyw0 2 eqUuh nsoh rFkk ih0MCyw0 5 fot; cktis;h us lk{; esa dgk gS fd ?kVuk ds le; cgqr ls yksx Fks ftlesa eks0 lbZn] 'kSysUnz rFkk gjhvkse [kM+s Fks] ftUgksaus ? kVuk ns[kh] ijUrq mDr xokgksa esa ls vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk fdlh dks is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS vkSj dksbZ Hkh Lora= lk{kh is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA ih-MCyw0 5 fot; dqekj oknh eqdnek ds HkkbZ us izfr ijh{kk ds ist 8 ij fd;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd ekjihV ds nkSjku iSj fQly tkus ds dkj.k esjs firk e`rd xM~<s esa fxj x,] mlus vius firk dks xM~<s ls ugha fudkyk Fkk] ckn esa iqfyl vk;h Fkh] mlus fudkyk Fkk rFkk ih0MCyw0 4 Mk0 th0ds0 feJk ftUgksaus e`rd dk iksLVekVZe fd;k] us vius izfr ijh{kk ds ist 2 ij crk;k fd ;fn xM~<k bZVksa dk cuk gks rks mlesa fxjus ls Åij ls 'kjhj ij bZVs fxjus ls mijksDr pksVsa vkuk lEHko gSaA ;g Hkh rdZ fn;k x;k fd oknh eqdnek ds firk Lo0 lqjsUnzukFk cktis;h ikap lxs HkkbZ Fks] bl izdkj mDr edku esa oknh eqdnek dk 1@5 Hkkx gS] ijUrq og orZeku le; esa vk/kks Hkkx ij dCtk fd, gSa ftldks mlus viuh eq[; ijh{kk ds ist 1 ij dgk gS fd ge yksx ,d gh edku ds vk/ks&vk/ks Hkkx esa jgrs gSa] blfy, cstk ncko cukus ds vk'k; ls mDr vfHk;ksx QthZ rjhds ls dgkuh cukdj iathd`r djk;k x;k gSA With regard to lodging of the FIR, the Court has observed hereinunder:
^^izLrqr ekeys esa oknh eqdnek izHkwfr dqekj cktis;h ftUgksaus izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ Fkkus ij fy[kk;h gS] D;k og ekSds ij ekStwn Fkk\ izHkwfr dqekj us vius lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd 30&35 QqV dh nwjh ls mlus ?kVuk ns[kh Fkh vkSj nwj ls ns[krk jgk] ekSds ij ugha x;kA tcfd ih0MCyw0 5 }kjk lk{; esa ;g dgk x;k fd mlds HkkbZ izHkwfr dks ,d ykBh iM+h rks og Hkkx x;k] mls pksVs ugha vk;h Fkh] tcfd izHkwfr }kjk ;g dgk x;k fd og ?kVuk dks nwj ls ns[k jgk FkkA ih0MCyw0 2 us dgk fd izHkwfr dqekj ?kVukLFky ij ugha igaqpk] cfYd pcwrjs ij [kM+k FkkA ;fn firk ds lkFk ekjihV gks jgh gks rks og D;ksa ugha x;k] ;g lk{kh dh ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkr dks lafnX/k cukrk gSA blls Hkh ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa lgh rF; vafdr ugha djk, x, gSaA With regard to testimony of P.W.4, the finding is hereinas under:
^^bl izdkj ls MkDVj }kjk tks pksVs e`rd ds 'kjhj ij fn[kk;h gS os ykBh MaMs ls vkuk lEHko gSa rFkk ;fn xM~<k bZV dk cuk gS vkSj mleas dksbZ O;fDr fxj tk, vkSj mlds Åij baZVs fxj tk, rks Hkh bl izdkj dh pksVsa vkuk lEHko gSA ekSds ij xM~<k nks&rhu fnu igys [kksnk x;k Fkk vkSj ?kVuk okys fnu pqukbZ@fuekZ.k dk;Z py jgk gS] ;g vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds lk{; ls iq"V gSA izLrqr ekeys esa cpko i{k dh vksj ls ;g eq[; rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd rhu fnu igys ls dk;Z py jgk Fkk ysfdu buds }kjk jksdk ugha x;k vkSj lqjsUnz ukFk cktis;h ogka ij fuekZ.k dk;Z dks ns[kus vk, Fks vkSj iSj fQly tkus ds dkj.k xM~<s esa fxj x,A bl lEcU/k esa cpko i{k }kjk rhu lk{kh Mh0MCyw0 1 gfjvkse ik.Ms;] Mh0MCyw0 2 /keZsUnz flag o Mh0MCyw0 3 dqlky flag dks ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gSA Mh0MCyw0 1 gfjvkse ik.Ms; ds lEcU/k esa ih0MCyw0 1] ih0MCyw0 2 o ih0MCyw0 5 us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa dgk gS fd ?kVuk ds le; lbZn] 'kSysUnz o gfjvkse ik.Ms; ekSds ij Fks vkSj rhuksa xokg mlh xkao ds jgus okys gSa tgka oknh o vfHk;qDrx.k fuokl djrs gSaA ih0MCyw0 1 us vius ftjg esa dgk fd tc og igaqph rks 'kSysUnz] gfjvkse] eks0 lbZn ogka [kM+s gq, FksA mDr rhuksa lk{kh vkjksi i= esa lk{kh ds :i esa ukfer Hkh gSa] ysfdu vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls bUgas ijhf{kr ugha djk;k x;k gS] cfYd cpko i{k }kjk bUgsa lk{; esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gSA Mh0MCyw0 1 gfjvkse ik.Ms; us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa dgk gS fd mldk edku cztsUnz ukFk cktis;h ds edku ls FkksM+h nwjh ij gSA cztsUnz ukFk cktis;h vius edku ds lkeus ysVªhu ds fy, lks[rk dk xM~<k rhu fnu igys [kqnok;k FkkA blds iwoZ izHkwfr us Hkh vius edku ds lkeus xM~<k [kqnok dj ysVªhu cuok;k Fkk ftlds ckor cztsUnz ukFk o muds ifjokj us dksbZ fojks/k ugha fd;k FkkA cztsUnz ukFk dh ysVªhu cuokus eas Hkh izHkwfr dks Hkh dksbZ fojks/k ugha Fkk] ?kVuk fnukad 9-6-05 dh gS] le; yxHkx lk<+s nl lqcg dk jgk gksxkA ?kVuk okys fnu xM~<s esa pqukbZ dk dke gks jgk Fkk] lqcg dk oDr gksus dh otg ls vklikl Hkh dbZ yksx [kM+s Fks D;ksafd dke lM+d ds fdukjs gks jgk FkkA^^ With regard to testimony of D.W.1 Hari Om, the Court has observed hereinas under:
^^c`tsUnz ukFk cktis;h ds lxs HkkbZ lqjsUnz cktis;h ftudh mez djhc 75 o"kZ gksxh xM~<s ds fdukjs cSBdj dke ns[k jgs Fks] 'kjhj ls nqcys&irys o detksj gksus ds dkj.k mBdj [kM+s gksdj ogka ls tkus yxs] [kqnh gq;h feV~Vh xM~<s ds vklikl iM+h Fkh mlh esa iSj fQly x;k] iSj fQlyus ls og xM~<s esa fxj x;s] mUgsa cpkus ds pDdj esa xM~<s esa dke dj jgk feL=h dks Hkh pksVsa vk;h FkhA xM~<s ds vklikl dkQh baZVs tek Fkh] og bZVs Hkh Åij ls xM~<s esa fxj x;h ftlls lqjsUnz cktis;h ds flj esa xEHkhj pksV vk x;h] 'kksj lqudj vkl&ikl ds dkQh yksx ogka ij bdV~Bk gks x,] fQj ge lc yksxksa us feydj xM~<s ls ckgj fudkyk] og csgks'kh gkyr esa Fks] mUgsa ckgj tehu ij fyVk;k] 'kksj lqudj cztsUnz ukFk o egsUnz ukFk Hkh ?kj ls fudy dj vk x,A lqjsUnz ukFk cktis;h dh iRuh o muds cM+s yM+ds fot; cktis;h Hkh 'kksj lqudj ckgj vk x;sA mudh iRuh o yMdk egsUnz ukFk cktis;h] cztsUnz ukFk cktis;h ls yMus yxs] rHkh ge yksxksa dks ekywe gqvk fd bu yksxksa ds chp eqdnek edku ds cVokjs dk py jgk gSA FkksM+h nsj esa ekSds ij iqfyl vk x;h] lqjsUnz ukFk cktis;h dks vLirky ys tk;k x;kA iqfyl us ge yksxksa ls iwNrkaN dh rks ge yksxksa us iqfyl dks ?kVuk dh tkudkjh ns nh Fkh vkSj crk fn;k Fkk] lqjsUnz ukFk cktis;h xM~<s esa fxj x, Fks ftlls muds pksVsa vk;h FkhA ftjg esa bl lk{kh us dgk gS fd **lqjsUnz ukFk cktis;h ftl xM~<s esa fxjs Fks og vkB&nl QqV xgjk gksxkA xM~<s esa pqukbZ mlh fnu 'kq: gq;h FkhA ?kVuk fnukad 9-6-05 dh lqcg djhc 10 cts dh gSA cztsUnz ukFk cktis;h] lqjsUnz ukFk cktis;h dk ?kj tqM+k gqvk gS] lqjsUnz ukFk cktis;h xM~<s ds ikl feV~Vh ij cSBs gq, Fks] mBdj tkus yxs rHkh iSj fQly x;k vkSj xM~<s esa fxj x,A xM~<s esa tks feL=h dke dj jgk Fkk og feL=h Hkh pksV [kk x;k FkkA ?kVuk ds le; xkao ds nl&ckjg yksx esjs lfgr ekStwn FksA lqjsUnz ukFk cktis;h dks geus o xkao ds yksxksa us fudkyk Fkk] flj ij dkQh pksVsa Fkh] csgks'k FksA xM~<s ls fudky dj ckgj fyVk;k x;k Fkk] vLirky ys tkrs le; jkLrs esa e`R;q gks x;hA fxjus dh lwpuk o 'kksj epus ij lqjsUnz dh iRuh o budk yMdk vius ?kj ls fudy vk,] 'kksj lqudj egsUnz ukFk cktis;h o cztsUnz ukFk cktis;h vius ?kj ls fudy vk,A lqjsUnzukFk dk yM+dk o iRuh] egsUnz ukFk cktis;h o cztsUnz ukFk cktis;h ls >xM+k djus yxsA** The further discussion is as under:
^^bl izdkj ls ;g lk{kh ftls vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa us dgk gS fd ;g ekSds ij mifLFkr Fkk vkSj bl lk{kh dh mifLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ lansg mRiUu ugha gks jgk gS fd cpko i{k }kjk vuk;kl gh ykdj vius leFkZu esa is'k fd;k gksA lk{kh us ?
kVuk dk tks o`RrkUr crk;k gS mlesa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ lansg mRiUu fd, tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA Mh0MCyw0 1 ds dFkuksa dk leFkZu Mh0MCyw0 2 /kesZUnz flag o Mh0MCyw0 3 dqlky flag tks fd mlh xkao ds fuoklh gSa] us Hkh fd;k gSA bl izdkj ls cpko i{k dk dFkkud ftls mlus vius lkf{k;ksa ls lkfcr djk;k gS] vfHk;kstu lk{kh ih0MCyw0 5 tks e`rdk dk iq= gSa] us dgk gS fd ekjihV ds nkSjku iSj fQly tkus ds dkj.k e`rd lqjsUnz ukFk cktis;h xM~<s esa fxj x, Fks] tcfd ih0MCyw0 1 o ih0MCyw0 2 ds c;ku ls Li"V gS fd xM~<s esa fxjus dh ckr mUgksaus ugha crk;h gSa] u gh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa bl rF; dks vafdr fd;k x;k gS] ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd ih0MCyw0 1 o ih0MCyw0 2 us lgh rF; U;k;ky; ds le{k ugha j[kk gSA ih0MCyw0 1 }kjk vius c;ku esa ;g dgk tkuk fd og 30&35 fQV dh nwjh ls ?kVuk ns[k jgk Fkk] fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ih0MCyw0 1 oknh eqdnek us viuh ftjg ds ist 2 ij dgk gS fd **fjiksVZ eSaus ?kj esa dejs esa cSBdj fy[kh Fkh] fjiksVZ fy[krs le; vU; dksbZ ekStwn ugha Fkk** vkxs ist 7 ij dgk fd **fjiksVZ ysdj eSa Fkkus x;k Fkk ftl le; eSaus fjiksVZ dh Fkh ml le; esjs HkkbZ fot; dqekj esjs lkFk ekStwn ugha FksA** tcfd ih0MCyw0 5 fot; dqekj us viuh izfr ijh{kk ds ist 2 ij dgk gS fd **?kVuk dh rgjhj izHkwfr dqekj cktis;h mQZ iIiw us Fkkus ij gh fy[k dj nh Fkh] tc fjiksVZ fy[kh tk jgh Fkh rc eSa Fkkus ij gh ekStwn FkkA** blh izdkj ih0MCyw0 2 us ftjg ds ist 5 ij dgk gS fd **?kVuk dh fjiksVZ pcwrjs ij fy[kk Fkk] fjiksVZ esjs lkeus fy[kh x;h Fkh] fot; dqekj csgks'k iM+k FkkA** ih0MCyw0 3 gsM dka0 v'kksd dqekj ftlus Fkkuk gktk ij eqdnek iathd`r fd;k] us viuh ftjg esa ist 2 ij dgk gS fd **oknh eqdnek fy[kkus vdsys vk;k Fkk] blds lkFk vU; dksbZ ugha FkkA** e`rd dks bykt gsrq ys tkus ds lEcU/k esa ih0MCyw0 1 us ftjg ds ist 6 ij dgk gS fd **eSa cxy ds MkDVj ds ikl mUgsa ys x;k Fkk] MkDVj lkgc dk uke ugha crk ldrk] mu MkDVj lkgc dk nok[kkuk 20 eh0 ds vklikl gksxkA** tcfd ih0MCyw0 5 us viuh ftjg esa ist 3 ij dgk gS fd **firk th dh e`R;q pksV yxus ls ekSds ij gh gks x;h Fkh blfy, bykt ds fy, ugha ys tk lds FksA firk th dks mBkdj MkDVj ds ;gka ugha ys x;k FkkA** bl izdkj vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds lk{; esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ vafdr djk, tkus o e`rd dks MkDVj ds ikl bykt gsrq ys tkus ds fcUnq ij fojks/kkHkk"k gSA The Court has observed that after the incident has taken place, there is a likelihood that there was a scuffle along with mar peet between the parties in which the deceased received injuries and thus the court has concluded hereinas under:
^^izLrqr ekeys esa vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk ;g dgk x;k fd lHkh eqfYteku ds }kjk MaMksa ls ekjdj pksVsa igaqpk;h x;h] ysfdu ekSds ls dsoy nks gh MaMs cjken gq, gSaA vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk ijhf{kr lk{kh ;g ugha crk lds fd fdlds gkFk esa MaMk Fkk] fdlds gkFk esa ykBh Fkh rFkk fdlus fdrus MaMs ekjsA vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk bl fcUnq ij is'k dh x;h lk{; etcwr lk{; ugha gSA bl izdkj mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ls Li"V gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk izLrqr ekeys eas tks lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlds vk/kkj ij lqjsUnz ukFk dh e`R;q dkfjr fd, tkus dk eqfYtekuksa dk u rks dksbZ gsrqd Fkk vkSj u gh vk'k; Fkk vkSj u eqfYtekuksa }kjk ykBh MaMks ls mls ekjk x;k] cfYd vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k] MkDVj lk{kh o cpko lk{kh ds lk{; o izLrqr ekeys ds rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd lqjsUnz ukFk iSj fQly tkus ds dkj.k xM~<s esa fxj x, vkSj muds flj ij gkFk ij pksVsa vk;hA oknh o muds ifjtuksa }kjk c<+k p<+kdj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fy[kk;h x;h gS] D;ksafd tehu ds cVokjk dks ysdj fookn rFkk QkStnkjh ekeys Hkh nksuksa i{kksa ds chp py jgs Fks ftlls c<+k p<+kdj eqfYtekuksa ds fo:) vfHk;ksx yxk;k x;k gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 304 Hkk0n0l0 dk vijk/k ;qfDr;qDr ,oa lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa vfHk;kstu i{k lQy ugha jgk gSA tgka rd /kkjk 147 o 323 Hkk0n0l0 ds vijk/k dk lEcU/k gS] vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls ijhf{kr lk{khx.k ds lk{; rFkk fpfdRlh; lk{; ls ;g lkfcr gS fd nksuksa i{k ds e/; ekjihV dh ?kVuk ?kfVr gq;h gS] ftls fpfdRld lk{kh }kjk vius lk{; ls iq"V fd;k x;k gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 147 o 323 Hkk0n0l0 dk vijk/k vfHk;kstu i{k lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k egsUnz cktis;h] jkuw cktis;h] 'kkuw cktis;h o Jherh xhrk dks /kkjk 147 o 323 Hkk0n0l0 ds vijk/k esa nks"kfl) fd;k tkrk gSA mUgsa ltk ds fcUnq ij lquk tk,xkA nkSjku fopkj.k vfHk;qDr cztsUnz ukFk cktis;h dh e`R;q gks tkus ds dkj.k mlds fo:) ekeyk mi'kfer fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDrx.k tekur ij gSa] muds O;fDrxr ca/ki= o tekurukes fujLr fd, tkrs gSa] mUgsa vfHkj{kk esa fy;k tk,A^^ 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 more so in view of the fact that about 13 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2005.
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 :- 23 .8.2018/Manish Tripathi