Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3239 of 2011 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Abdul Rahman & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Ms. Sanyukta Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2015 by means of which the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offences under sections 363, 366, 352, 368 and 376 IPC passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 661 of 2002.
We have heard learned A.G.A. at great length and we have also perused the findings as have been recorded by the court concerned. Even the lower court record is available.
The record makes it crystal clear that the first informant in the present case is the brother of the victim and he has been examined as PW-
3. There is no dispute that the FIR has been lodged after much delay and the delay has not been explained. At the very outset we find that with regard to the observation of the court concerned regarding the age of the girl it is clear that as per the doctor opinion the age of the girl is 18 years. Reference in this regard can be heard to the testimony of doctor Sunita Kashyap who is reexamined as PW-6 who says that as per the certificate issued by the C.M.O Bulandshahar, dated 20.12.1999 the age of the girl is 18 years. PW-6 Sunita Kashyap also says that there are no injury either external or internal and there are no injury on the private part of the deceased.
PW-10 Smt. Suraiya Malik who is the principal of the H.R. Girl High school Khurja has also certified that as per register of the school the date of birth of the girl is 20.05.1983. However it is established law that as on date the medical age certified by the C.M.O. will prevail over school certificate. It has further be appreciated that respondent-1 is aged about 80 years and he is in his testimony categorically stated that “vCnqy jgeku us vius c;ku eas viuh vk;q djhc 80 o"kZ gkuks crkrs gq;s dgk fd ejks yMdk+ vlye o 'kek ijohu ,d lkFk i<+rs Fks rFkk nksuksa vkil eas ekgs Ccr djrs FksA ejhs fcuk tkudkjh ds nksukas ?kj ls Hkkx x;s rFkk viuh ethZ ls fudkg dj fy;s FksA 'kek ijohu ds ifjokj okys vlye ls mldh 'kknh ugha ns[kuk pkgrs FksA blfy, 'kek ijohu o vlye ds ?kj ls pys tkus ds ckn jaft'k ds dkj.k 'kek ijohu ds ?kjokyksa us ;g >waBk eqdnek dk;e djk;k gSA ;gh dFku vfHk;qDr Qtywjgeku o budh cgu vfHk;qDrk Jherh jks'ku us fd;k gSA vfHk;qDrk jks'ku dk ;g c;ku Hkh gS fd ?kVuk ds ckn og dHkh viuh cgu ds ikl fnYyh ugha x;h FkhA ”
DW-1 Sultan Ahmad has also been examined in support of the Nikahnama. The relevant extract is quoted herein below:-
vfHk;qDr us viuh lQkbZ esa 'kek ijohu dk fudkgukek izn'kZ [k&1 rFkk mlds }kjk vlye dks fy[kk x;k izsei= nkf[ky fd;k gSA ,oa nks xokg izLrqr djds mls lkfcr djus ds fy;s mudk c;ku vafdr djk;k gSA Mh0 MCyw&1 Mk0 lqyrku vgen u[kkl dksuk] Fkkuk 'kkgxat] ftyk bykgkckn ds jgus okys gS rFkk ftUgksus Lo0 dkth gkfQt eks0 bLekby }kjk tkjh fd;s x;s ewy fudkg jftLVj dks U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djds vfHk;qDr vlye vkSj ihfMrk 'kek ijohu mQZ jkuh ds fudkgukek izn'kZ [k&1 dks lkfcr fd;k rFkk ;g crk;k gS fd ;g fudkgukek dkth gkfQt eks0 bLekbe }kjk fy[kk x;k gS ftudh fnlEcj 1999 esa e`R;q gks pqdh gSA Mh0 MCyw0& 1 dk lk{; gS fd og gekjs ekSlk FksA ewy fudkg jftLVj cqd uEcj 25 dh jlhn la[;k 225 fudkgukek gS tks dkth eks0 bLekby ds ys[k o gLrk{kj esa gSA bl fudkg ukek esa yM+dh us nLr[kr esa 'kek jkuh fy[kk gS rFkk blds oyh dk uke blds ppktkr HkkbZ ekS0 bLyke dk fy[kk gSA xokg esa bejku o [kq'khZn dk uke gSA”
Love letter finds before the court concerned also examined by handwriting expert opined “;g ik;k x;k fd ;g nksukas i= ,d gh O;fDr ds y[s k esa gS ftlus uewuk ys[k dkxt la[;k 452 , fy[kk gS ogh fookfnr ys[k dkxt la[;k 42@, dk ys[kd gSA”
Thus it is not disputed that the love letter also stands proved in accordance with law.
With regard to the testimony of PW-2 Ibrahim, the court has observed herein as under:-
“loZizFke bl fcUnq ij ih0 MCyw0&2 bczkghe ds c;ku ij fopkj fd;k tk jgk gSA ih0 MCyw0&2 dk lk{; gS fd ?kVuk okys fnu lqcg ikSus 9 cts mlus ns[kk Fkk fd mijksDr pkjksa vfHk;qDrx.k ek:fr dkj esa 'kek ijohu dks fcBkdj th0 Vh0 jksM+ cqyUn'kgj dh vksj ys x;sA izfri`PNk esa bl xokg us tks c;ku fn;k gS mldk ifj'khyu djus ij eSa ikrk gwW fd ;g fo'oluh; lk{kh ugha gSA ;g vU; dbZ vkijkf/kd ekeyksa esa Hkh xokgh nsus dk dk;Z fd;k gS tSlk fd izfri`PNk esa blds } kjk fn;s x;s c;ku ls vkSj cpko i{k }kjk bl xokg ds lac/k esa nkf[ky fu.kZ; dh izfr;ksa ls izekf.kr gksrk gSA ;fn ih0 MCyw0 &2 lqcg ikSus 9 cts ,slh dksbZ ?kVuk ns[kk gksrk vkSj mldh lwpuk mlh le; oknh eks0 'kQhd dks fn;k gksrk rks izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ vafdr djkus esa lk<s 12 ?kUVs dk foyEc u gksrk tSlk fd bl fu.kZ; esa igys foospuk fd;k tk pqdk gSA rnuqlkj vigj.k ds ckjs esa ih0 MCyw0&2 bczkfge }kjk fn;k x;k lk{; fo'oluh; ugh gSA”
The court has further observed that from the perusal of the love letter it is crystal clear that the girl was relationship with the Aslam. The relevant extract is quoted herein below:-
“bl i= dks i<us ls fcYdqy Li"V gS fd dq0 'kek ijohu Lo0 vfHk;qDr vlye ls ?kVuk ls igys ls I;kj djrh Fkh vkSj mlls 'kknh djuk pkgrh Fkh ysfdu blds fy, mlds ?kj okys rS;kj ugh Fks blfy, muls og Mjrh FkhA mDr fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds bl dFku dks vLohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd 'kek ijohu LosPNk ls ?kVuk ds fnu vius ?kj ls Hkkx dj vlye ds lkFk pyh x;h FkhA”
The most important however the death of the victim herself (Shama Parvin). The relevant extract is quoted herein below:-
“i=koyh esa tks dq0 'kek ijohu dk lk{; vk;k gS mlds vuqlkj og yxHkx ,d ekg 20 fnu rd vlye ds lkFk jghA bl nkSjku og dqN fnu esjB jgh fQj fnYyh ds enjlk esa jgh fQj Vsªu ls tkdj 15&20 fnu bykgkckn jghA mlds ckn iqu% dkj ls fnYyh vk;hA blus bl nkSjku dHkh Hkh Hkkxus dk vFkok vius dks cpkus dk dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;kA esjB esa ftl dejk esa og j[kh x;h Fkh og edku vkcknh esa Fkk ysfdu ogka 7&8 fnu ds nkSjku dHkh blus 'kksjxqy djds fdlh dks cqykus ;k Hkkxdj cpus dk iz;kl ugha fd;kA fnYyh esa ftl enjlk esa og ,d jkr jgh ml enjlk esa dkQh O;fDr Fks tSlk fd izfri`PNk esa ih0 MCyw0& 1 us Lohdkj fd;k gS ogka Hkh 'kksj xqy djds dksb ckr mlus Ldwy ds cPpksa dks ;k enjlk okyksa dks ugha crk;kA fQj enjlk ls og iSny jsyos LVs'ku tkuk crkrh gS vkSj Vsªu ls fnYyh ls bykgkckn tkuk dgrh gSA fnYyh LVs'ku ij vFkok bykgkckn LVs'ku ,oa Vsªu ds vUnj blus vigj.k ds ckjs esa dgha fdlh ls dksbZ enn ugha ekaxkA bykgkckn esa 15&16 fnu rd jghA ogka ls dHkh Hkkxus dk dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;k vkSj u dksbZ enn ekaxhA ;gka ls fQj fnYyh x;h vkSj vfHk;qDr vlye dh cgu ds ;gka jghA jkLrs esa tkrs le; ;k ekSgYys esa fdlh ls dksbZ enn ugha ekaxhA blls fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd dq0 'kek ijohu okLro esa viuh ethZ ls Hkkxdj vfHk;qDr vlye ds lkFk x;h FkhA blus vigj.k ds lac/k esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) tks lk{; fn;k gS og jap ek= fo'okl fn;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA”
With regard to the investigation convicting by the Investigating Officer S.I. Bhajan Lal Mukesh the court has observed herein as under:-
“ih0 MCyw0 &7 dk Li"V lk{; gS fd vius c;ku esa 'kek ijohu us vfHk;qDr vkfjQ dk dksbZ uke ugha fy;kA ,slk dksbZ lk{; mlus ugh fn;k fd vfHk;qDr vkfjQ us esjB esa mlds lkFk dksbZ cykRdkj fd;k FkkA i=koyh esa miyC/k lk{; ls ik;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 21-12-99 ds ckn djhc 15 fnu rd dq0 'kek ijohu vius ?kj eas vius ekrk firk rFkk vius HkkbZ ds lkFk jghA blds ckn ;gka ls iqfyl us mls ys tkdj vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVsªV r`rh;] cqyUn'kgj ds ;gka /kkjk 164 n0 iz0 l0 ds vUrZxr mldk c;ku vafdr djk;kA bl c;ku esa loZizFke 'kek ijohu us crk;k fd vfHk;qDr vkfjQ us Hkh mlds lkFk esjB esa cykRdkj fd;k FkkA blh c;ku ds vk/kkj ij foospd us vfHk;qDr vkfjQ ds fo:) /kkjk 376 Hkk0 n0 fo0 ds vUrZxr vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k gSA U;k;ky; esa 'kek ijohu us vius mDr c;ku dk leFkZu fd;k gS ysfdu mDr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa bldk c;ku iw.kZr;k lfUnX/k gSA fpfdRldh; fjiksVZ ls Hkh cykRdkj ds lac/k eas 'kek ijohu ds c;ku dh iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA bl ckr dh iw.kZ lEHkkouk gS fd vius ?kjokyksa ds dgus ij blus dq0 jks'ku vkSj dq0 peu dk uke /kkjk 164 n0 iz0 l0 ds c;ku esa fy;kA vr% mijksDr fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrk dq0 jks'ku ds fo:) tks lk{; ih0 MCyw0&1 'kek ijohu us fn;k gS ml ij lUnsg ls ijs fo'okl fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA izfri`PNk eas ih0 MCyw0 &1 'kek ijohu us fudkgukek izn'kZ [k&1 ij vius gLrk{kj 'kek jkuh ds :i eas djuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA bl fudkgukek esa 'kek ijohu ds oyh esa eks0 bLyke dqjs'kh oYn ekS0 guhQ fuoklh ljk; vYyh dk uke fy[kk gqvk gS rFkk ;g Hkh fy[kk gS fd ;g yM+dh ds ppktkr HkkbZ gSA 'kek us izfri`PNk esa mDr bLyke dks vius fj'rs esa gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gSA”
And in view of the aforesaid findings the court has concluded herein as under:-
gwW “i=koyh esa miyC/k lk{; dh mijksDr foospuk ls eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqprk fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fcyfEcr gS ftlesa jk; e'kojk djds feF;k dFku vafdr djk;s tkus dh lEHkkouk fo|eku jgh gS miyC/k rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls ;g Hkh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd dq0 'kek ijohu ,oa Lo vfHk;qDr vlye ,d nwljs dks pkgrs FksA 'kek ijohu ?kVuk ds le; o;Ld Fkh tks LosPNk ls viuk ?kj NksM+dj rFkk Hkkxdj vlye ds lkFk x;h Fkh vkSj djhc ,d ekg 20 fnu rd mlds lkFk jgh FkhA vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr lk{; ls ;g lUnsg ls ijs izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd vkjksfir vfHk;qDr vCnqy jgeku o Qtqyjgeku us 'kek ijohu dh 'kknh vlye ls djkus ds fy, mldk dksbZ vigj.k fd;k FkkA ;g rF; Hkh lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gS fd vfHk;qDr vkfjQ us 'kek ds lkFk dksbZ cykRdkj fd;k FkkA ;g Hkh lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd dq0 'kek ijohu dks fnYyh esa vijg.k djds vlye ds cguksbZ ds ?kj esa ifjjks/k esa j[kk x;k Fkk rFkk ogka ij vkjksfir vfHk;qDr jks'ku us 'kek ds Åij vkijkf/kd cy dk dksbZ iz;ksx fd;k Fkk vFkok vlye ls 'kknh djus ds fy, ncko Mkyk Fkk ,oa ifjjks/k ds nkSjku fuxjkuh fd;k FkkA”
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.
Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Swati