Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 1103 of 2011
Appellant :- Ramdhari Alias Gama
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
List revised. None present on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal, which is filed under section 372 Cr.P.C.
Appeal is yet to be admitted. Lower court record is available.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court, Room No. 23, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 1057 of 2006, case crime no. 186A/99 under sections 504, 427 IPC, P.S. Manda, District Allahabad whereby opposite parties no.2 to 5 were acquitted for the offence under sections 504, 427 IPC.
In this matter, charges against the opposite parties no.2 to 5 were framed for the offence under sections 504, 427 IPC. Trial court acquitted the opposite parties no.2 to 5 on the ground that none of the ingredients to constitute the offence under section 504 IPC have been proved by the prosecution from its evidence. Similar is the position for the offence under section 427 IPC.
If the observation / findings recorded by the trial court are analyzed in light of evidence available on record, no perversity is found in the impugned judgment and order. Specific words uttered by the accused persons to attract the offence under section 504 IPC has not been made clear in the first information report nor in the statement recorded before the court on oath. What loss / damage actually occurred to the informant to constitute the offence under section 427 IPC is neither clear nor established beyond reasonable doubt.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 315 has held as under.
"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case.
While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."
In the case of Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 298, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under.
"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
On close scrutiny of entire evidence and considering the overall circumstances, observations recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order need no interference.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018
ss