Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 5 of 2014
Applicant :- Smt. Shailesh Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Mayank Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013 by means of which accused respondent no. 2 Popendra Singh has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 452, 323, 376, 506, 504 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant has 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 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 also perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded a number of categorical findings, relevant of which are being extracted herein as under:-
vfHk;ksD=h us vius c;ku vUrxZr /kkjk 164 na0iz0la0 esa tks fnukad 17&05&12 dks U;kf;d eft0 d{k la0 2] vyhx<+ }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k gS] esa ;g crk;k gS fd eSus iksisUnz }kjk cykRdkj dh ckr crk;h rks bl ij esjs ifr us eq>s cgqr ekjkA ifr ds ekjus ls iSjks es] dej esa pksVs vk;h] jk;Qy dh iqfN;k ls cqjh rj ekjk] csYV ls Hkh ekjkA jkeohj ih0MCyw0 2 us vius c;ku esa vfHk;ksD=h dks pksV igqWpkus dk dFku ugh fd;k gSA lk{kh us dFku fd;k gS fd eSus iRuh dks 2&4 gkFk ekjs FksA nks pkj gkFk ekjus ls vfHk;ksD=h ds 'kjhj ij ik;h x;h pksVsa ugh vk ldrh FkhA mijksDr ifjfLFkr bafxr djrh gS fd vfHk;kstu ds }kjk iw.kZ o lgh rF;ksa dks U;k;ky; ds le{k ugh j[kk x;k gSA vfHk;ksD=h ds c;ku o fpfdRlh; lk{; esa ;g fojks/kkHkkl lk{kh ds c;kuksa rFkk lEiw.kZ vfHk;kstu ekeys dks lafnX/k cukrk gSA The relevant extract of testimony of PW-8 Kishan Pal who is the investigating officer of the case is being extracted herein as under:-
eS ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ntZ gksus ds ikSu ?kUVs ckn ihfM+rk ds ?kj igqWpk] eSus dejs esa fcNh cSM'khV dk fujh{k.k fd;k] eq>s 'kqdzk.kq dk dksbZ fu'kku cSM'khV ij ugh feykA eSus ihfM+rk dh p<Mh ;k lyokj ;k dksbZ oL= vius dCts esa ugh fy;kA The record also shows that no other independent witness has been examined, who are living in the neighbourhood even the son of victim has not been examined. There is no eye witness to show the participation of the applicant in the alleged crime. In view of the aforesaid finding the court concerned has concluded herein below:-
fpfdRlh; lk{; ds voyksdu ls vfHk;ksD=h ds ;ksfuL=ko esa e`r 'kqdzk.kq dk ik;k tkuk ;g izdV djrk gS fd vfHk;ksD=h ds lkFk lEHkksx fd;k x;k FkkA vfHk;qDr }kjk cykRdkj fd;s tkus ds vkjksi dh iqf"V ds fy, vfHk;kstu ds fy, ;g vko';d gS fd lEHkksx vfHk;qDr }kjk gh fd;k tkuk nf'kZr djsA lk{kh Mk0 vferk jkuh ih0MCyw0 3 us 'kqdzk.kq 48 ls 72 ?kUVs ds ckn ej tkus dk dFku fd;k gSA Mk0 e/kq dkS'ky ih0MCyw0 4 us viuh izfrijh{kk esa crk;k gS fd ;ksfuL=ko dh LykbM dh tkWp 07&05&12 vFkkZr ?kVuk ds 3 fnu ckn dh FkhA Mk0 vferk jkuh ih0MCyw0 3 ds }kjk izfrijh{kk esa ;g dFku fd;k x;k gS fd og fuf'pr ugh crk ldrh fd ihfM+rk ds lkFk 04&05&12 le; djhc 10 cts lEHkksx gqvk Fkk ;k ughA bl izdkj fpfdRlh; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lEHkksx fd;s tkus dk le; fuf'pr ugh fd;k tk ldrkA vfHk;ksD=h fookfgrk L=h o nks cPpksa dh ekW gSA lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;ksD=h ?kVuk ds iwoZ o i'pkr~ Hkh vius ifr ds lkFk gh jgh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ifr iRuh ds e/; lEHkksx dh lEHkkouk dks vLohdkj ugh fd;k tk ldrk gS vkSj ek= e`r 'kqdzk.kq ds ;ksfuL=ko esa mifLFkr ik;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr }kjk cykRdkj fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esa fu"d"kZ ugh fudkyk tk ldrk gS] fo'ks"kdj tc fd ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa vfHk;ksD=h ds c;ku iwoZ esa dh x;h foospuk ds vk/kkj ij iw.kZ fo'oluh; ugh ik;s x;s gSA vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;ksD=h ds ifr jkeohj us viuk edku [kjhnrs le; vfHk;qDr iksisUnz ls 50]000@& m/kkj fy, Fks] :i;k ekWxus ij mls >wWBk Qlk fn;k gSA izfrj{kk eas uRFkwflag Mh0MCyw0 1] latho dqekj Mh0MCyw0 2 o jktdqekj Mh0MCyw0 3 dks ijhf{kr djk;k gSA izfrj{kk lk{; esa ijhf{kr lkf{k;ksa us vfHk;qDr iksisUnz flag ls jkeohj }kjk edku ds fy, 50]000@& :i;s m/kkj ysuk rFkk okil djus ls euk djus o vfHk;qDr iksisUnz dks eqdnes esa >wWBk Qlk nsus dh /kedh nsus ds lEcU/k esa lk{; fn;k gSA vfHk;ksD=h ih0MCyw0 1 rFkk jkeohj ih0MCyw0 2 us vius c;kuksa esa fot;x<+ esa edku [kjhnk tkuk Lohdkj fd;k gS ijUrq izfrj{kk i{k ds bl lq>ko dks vLohdkj fd;k gS fd ml edku dks [kjhnus ds fy, 50]000@& :i;k iksisUnz ls fy;k FkkA fo)ku 'kkldh; vf/koDrk dh vksj ls dFku fd;k x;k fd 50]000@& :i;k dh jkf'k ds fy, dksbZ L=h vius pfj= ij ykaNu yxkdj vfHk;qDr dks >wWBk ugh QlkW;sxhA vfHk;kstu ds fy, ;g vko';d gS fd og vius lk{; ls vfHk;kstu ekeys dks lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djsaA orZeku ekeys eas fu.kZ; esa dh x;h foospuk ls ;g Li"V gS fd lk{kh jkeohj dk vfHk;kstu ds crk;s vuqlkj ?kVukLFky ij igqWpuk lafnX/k gS rFkk vfHk;ksD=h ds c;ku ? kVuk ds lEcU/k eas iw.kZr% fo'oluh; ugh gS vkSj mudk leFkZu fpfdRlh; lk{; ls ugh gksrk gSA vfHk;kstu }kjk viuk dsl lkfcr u dj ikus dh fLFkfr esa izfrj{kk lk{; dk egRo xkS.k gks tkrk gSA Perusal of the judgment shows that the court concerned has relied upon the statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
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 counsel for the applicant 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.
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, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.
Let lower court record be sent back to the court concerned.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 M/A.Ravi