Court No. - 26
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8039 of 2007 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ajab Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.
The present appeal has been filed along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgement and order dated 28.07.2007 by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj passed in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2001, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act.
Submission of learned A.G.A. is that prosecution was able to prove it case beyond reasonable doubt. All the ingredients required to prove the offence under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. as well as Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act have been proved by the prosecution witnesses. Trial court did not consider the prosecution evidence in right perspective and mis-appreciating the evidence acquitted the accused-respondents. Thus prayer was made to grant leave to appeal.
I have considered the submissions and perused the entire record.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, there is major contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses on material point. Enmity has also been admitted by the witness. If such was the position, finding recorded in the imugned judgment and order cannot be termed to be illegal.
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."
The application moved by the appellant State of U.P. to grant leave to appeal for the reason discussed herein above is not liable to be allowed. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is refused.
Since the application for grant to leave has been refused, the appeal is also not liable to be admitted and is dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 A.N. Mishra