Court No. - 51
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 88 of 2018 Applicant :- Rajbhan Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
The present appeal is being heard only with regard to accused-Respondent No.2 and 4 only.
The counsel for the appellants seeks liberty to delete the name of accused-Respondent No.3 Pinku whose file has already been separated and transferred to juvenile board.
The necessary correction be done during the course of the day.
Heard counsel for the appellant on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.7.2018 by means of which the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC.
We have heard counsel for the appellant and we have perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. It is apparent from perusal of the record that the Court has given cogent reasons while giving the verdict of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents. No illegality and perversity has been pointed out to the reasoning and the conclusion as recorded by the court concerned. The observation of the court concerned and the reasoning on which the judgment of acquittal is based, is being extracted hereinbelow:
**oknh eqdnek jktHkku ,oa pksVfgy lk{kh mn;Hkku }kjk ekSds ij dkQh HkhM+ bdV~Bk gksus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS lHkh eqfYteku }kjk Qk;j djuk crk;k x;k gSA pksVfgy lk{kh mn;Hkku ih0MCyw0&2 }kjk jkeohj }kjk pyk;h x;h xksyh Lo;a dks yxus dk dFku fd;k x;k gSA /kkjk 319 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr jkeohj dks ryc fd;s tkus dk i;kZIr vk/kkj ugha ik;k x;kA iz'uxr ?kVuk fnukad 18-08-2007 nksigj 1-30 cts dh vfHkdfFkr dh x;h gS] tcfd bldh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ mlh fnu 'kke dks 18-30 cts yxHkx ikWp ?kUVs i'pkr ntZ djk;h x;h gS ?kVuk LFky ls Fkkuk dh nwjh 30 fdeh0 gS rFkk mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ;g vafdr gS fd foyEc dk dkj.k lwpuk esa nsjh tkfuo oknh gSA oknh }kjk viuh rgjhj esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd esjs HkkbZ mn;Hkku dh ihB esa xksyh yxh ftlls ?kk;y gksdj ogha fxj iM+k ekSds ij jkefd'ku] Jhd`".k] lqjs'kpUnz dh en~n ls VsªDVj }kjk ftyk vLirky esa HkrhZ djk;k gS tgkW ij esjs HkkbZ gh gkyr xEHkhj o fpUrktud gSA lk{kh MkW0 ;w0lh0 prqosZnh ih0MCyw0&7 }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa dFku fd;k x;k gS] fd et:c mn;Hkku dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k jkf= 10-30 cts fd;k x;k FkkA ?kVuk nksigj 1-30 cts dh vfHkdfFkr gS tcfd pksVfgy mn;Hkku dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k jkf= 10-30 cts dk gS bl e/; pksVfgy mn;Hkku dgkW jgk vFkok mlds bykt dks izkFkfedrk D;ksa ugha nh x;h] vfHk;kstu }kjk Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA tcfd viuh rgjhj esa oknh }kjk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd pksVfgy dks bykt gsrq HkrhZ djk;k x;k mDr ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dh rgjhj 18-30 cts nh x;h ftlesa pksVfgy dk vLirky esa HkrhZ djk;k tkuk n'kkZ;k x;kA tcfd pksVfgy dk esfMdy jkf= 10-30 cts MkW0 ;w0lh0 prqosZnh ih0MCyw0&7 }kjk fd;k x;kA ?kVuk ds le; iapk;r ,0Mh0vks0] lsdszVjh nUukgkj dh iqfyl o ljdkjh dfeZ;kas dk mifLFkr gksus dk dFku fd;k x;k gS] fdUrq blesa ls fdlh dks lk{kh ds :i esa ijhf{kr ugha djk;k x;k gSA rgjhj esa lHkh vfHk;qrx.k }kjk Qk;j fd;k tkuk dgk x;k tcfd oknh eqdnek jktHkku ih0MCyw0&1 }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa jkerhFkZ] cUVw o fiUVw }kjk tku ls ekjus dh fu;r ls Qk;j fd;k tkuk dgk x;k gS tks mlds HkkbZ mn;Hkku ds ihB esa xksyh yxhA tcfd pksVfgy mn;Hkku ih0MCyw0&2 }kjk Li"V :i ls dFku fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr jkeohj }kjk pyk;h x;h xksyh ls mls pksV yxhA tcfd lk{kh Jhd`".k ih0MCyw0&3 }kjk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd lqeu dks nqdku fey tk;sxh blfy, jkerhFkZ] jkeohj] fiUVw] cUVw tks x;knsoh dh vksj ls Fks] us jkeohj dks xksyh ekjhA nkSjku foopsuk jkeohj dh mifLFkfr ekSds ij u ik;s tkus ds dkj.k mldk uke nkSjku foospuk fudkyk x;kA U;k;ky; esa ijh{k.k ds nkSjku izkFkZuk i= /kkjk 319 n0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr Hkh mDr jkeohj dks ryc fd;s tkus dk dksbZ i;kZIr dkj.k vFkok vk/kkj ugha ik;k x;kA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ vR;Ur foyEc ls fy[kk;h x;h gS ftldk dksbZ dkj.k Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ lksp fopkj dj] jk; e'kojk djds fy[kk;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA mn;Hkku ih0MCyw0&2 dks xksyh yxus ds ckotwn mlds bykt dks izkFkfedrk u fn;k tkuk ,oa jkf= 10-30 cts ?kVuk ds yxHkx 9 ?kUVs i'pkr fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k gsrq vLirky ,oa MkDVj ds ikl ys tk;k x;kA tcfd rgjhj esa oknh }kjk ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd pksVfgy dks bykt gsrq HkrhZ djk;k x;k gSA -Fkku ls esfMdy gsrq et:c mn;Hkku dks Hkstk tkuk vafdr gSA fnukWd 18- 08-2007 dks le; 18-30 cts izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fdrk dh x;h gS tcfd esfMdy gsrq pksVfgy dks jkf= 10-30 cts MkW0 ;w0lh0 prqosZnh ih0MCyw0&7 ds le{k bykt gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl foyEc dk Hkh dksbZ dkj.k ugha n'kkZ;k x;k gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ,oa esfMdy foyEc ls djk;s tkus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha n'kkZ;k x;k gS tcfd foyEc dk dkj.k izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa oknh dh vksj ls gh nsjh fd;k tkuk nf'kZr gSA tcfd pksVfgy mn;Hkku dks xEHkhj pksVs vkus dk dFku fd;k x;k gSA lk{kh Jhd`".k ih0MCyw0&3 }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa ekSds ij eqfYteku jkerhFkZ] fiUVw] cUVw dks idM+k tkuk o muls vlykg cjken gksus dk dFku fd;k x;kA oknh eqdnek jktHkku }kjk Hkh iqfyl }kjk eqfYteku dks ekSds ij idMus dh dksf'k'k djus ij muds }kjk iqfyl ij Qk;j fd;k tkuk o eqfYteku ls vlykg cjken gksuk dgk x;k gSA jktHkku flag oknh eqdnek ih0MCyw0&1 }kjk izkFkZuk i= 49 [k bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k x;k fd lgou Hkwy dh otg ls izkFkhZ eqn~bZ ds dsl dh eq[; ijh{kk ds ist ua0&2 ij NBh ykbu esa oUVw ds LFkku ij fiUVw ntZ gks x;k gS rFkk blh ist dh uoha ykbu esa fiUVw dh txg oUVw ntZ gks x;k gS] dks la'kks/ku fd;s tkus dh vuqefr pkgh x;h] ftls U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vfHk;qDrx.k ds gkFkksa ij n'kkZ;s x;s gfFk;kjksa dh ckor~ Hkh fojks/kkHkk"k gS ftls eq[; ijh{kk ds i'pkr cnyokus gsrq iz;kl fd;k x;k] ftls U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr fd;k x;kA oknh eqdnek }kjk ftjg esa dFku fd;k x;k gS fd pquko esa gkftj vnkyr eqfYteku jkerhFkZ vkfn dk dksbZ izR;k'kh ugha FkkA tcfd mn;Hkku ih0MCyw0&2 }kjk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd jkeohj o jkerhFkZ ds ifjokj dk dksbZ mEehnokj ugha Fkk ysfdu bu yksxksa us mEehnokj [kM+k fd;k FkkA lk{kh Jhd`".k ih0MCyw0&2 }kjk ftjg esa dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ,d i{k esa esjh HkkHkh Fkh rFkk nwljs i{k ds leFkZu iky tkfr dj jgs FksA iky yksxksa us Qk;fjax ugha dhA bl izdkj vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr lk{; esa egRoiw.kZ fojks/kkHkk"k gSa ,oa vfHk;kstu dFkkud ftl izdkj ls ?kVuk gksuk n'kkZ;k x;k gS fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk 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, the Court being of the opinion that neither any independent witness has been produced nor any criminal history has been shown, all the respondents have been acquitted.
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 more than 10 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2008.
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