Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8045 of 2009
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Alok Kumar And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Shri Yogeshwar Rai learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.7.2009 by means of which accused respondent Ashish Kumar has been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC and as far as accused respondent Alok Kumar is concerned, he has been convicted under Section 302 IPC, however he has been acquitted of the offence under Section 25 and 27 Arms Act.
We have heard learned AGA at great length. We have also perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. The court concerned has recorded categorical findings while returning the verdict of acquittal, relevant of which are being extracted herein as under:-
vc eq[; :i ls ;g fofuf'pr fd;k tkuk gS fd vfHk;qDr vk'kh"k dqekj ds fo:) vfHk;kstu i{k lUnsg ls ijs vkjksfir vijk/k dks fl) djus esa lQy jgk gSA vfHk;qDr vk'kh"k dqekj dks /kkjk 302@34 Hkk0n0la0 esa vkjksfir fd;k x;k gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ek= ;g vfHkdfFkr fd;k x;k gS vk'kh"k dqekj ds mdlkus ij mlds HkkbZ vkyksd dqekj us reUps ls Qk;j fd;k FkkA Hkk0na0la0 dh /kkjk 34 ds vuqlkj tc dksbZ vkijkf/kd dk;Z dbZ O;fDr;ksa }kjk vius :i ds lkekU; vk'k; dks vxzlj djus gsrq fd;k tkrk gS rc ,sls O;fDr;ksa esa ls gj O;fDr ml dk;Z ds fy, mlh izdkj nkf;Ro ds v/khu gS] ekuks og dk;Z vdsys mlh us fd;k gSA /kkjk&34 vkijkf/kd dk;Z djus esa la;qDr nkf;Ro ds fl)kar dks ewrZ :i nsrh gSA bl nkf;Ro dk lkj lkekU; vk'k; dh fo|ekurk gSA /kkjk&34 u dsoy lkekU; vk'k; dh mis{kk djrh gS] cfYd vijk/k esa Hkkx ysus dh Hkh vis{kk djrh gSA fdlh vijk/k dks lqyHk cukus ds fy, fdlh dk;Z vFkok yksi ds lcwr ds vkHkko esa fdlh O;fDr dh vijk/k ds ?kfVr gksus ds le; ek= mifLFkfr mldh nks"kflf) ds fy, i;kZIr ugha gSA vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls Hkh dksbZ ,slk fo'oluh; lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk lds fd vfHk;qDr vk'kh"k dqekj dk lkekU; vk'k; Fkk vkSj lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlkj esa fd, x, dk;Z esa Hkkx fy;kA ek= bruk dg nsuk fd mlus mdlk;k Fkk] i;kZIr ugha gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k&1 us dsoy bruk dgk gS fd vk'kh"k dqekj ds mdlkus ij mlds HkkbZ vkyksd dqekj us reUpk ls Qk;j dj fn;kA vfHk;kstu lk{kh iq"isUnz dqekj us ;g lk{; fn;k gS fd vk'kh"k us vkyksd ls dgk fd izoh.k dqekj lkys dks xksyh ekj nksA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k&1 o 2 ds bl lk{; esa ;g xEHkhj fojks/kkHkk"k gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh iq"isUnz us ;g ckr Hkh dh fd vk'kh"k us vkyksd ls dgk fd izoh.k lkys dks xksyh ekj nks] /kkjk&161 ds c;ku esa ugh gS vkSj foospd ih0MCyw0&8 ukxs'k dqekj feJk] ftUgksaus iq"isUnz dk c;ku fy;k Fkk] us lk{; fn;k gS fd iq"isUnz us mls ;g ugha crk;k Fkk fd vk'kh"k us vkyksd ls dgk fd izoh.k lkys dks xksyh ekj nksA ;g rF; u rks izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa gS vkSj u gh /kkjk&161 ds c;ku esa gh gSA ;g ,d rF; dh c<+ksRrjh gSA ek= ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkr gksus ds vk/kkj ij ;g fl) ugha gks tkrk gS fd vfHk;qDr }kjk lkekU; vk'k; ds vxzlj esa vkijkf/kd dk;Z esa Hkkx fy;k FkkA vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDr vk'kh"k ds fo:) vijk/k /kkjk&302@34 Hkk0n0la0 fl) djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk gSA No illegality or perversity has been pointed out with the findings as recorded by the court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal in favour of accused respondent Ashish Kumar. As far as acquittal of accused respondent Alok Kumar under Section 25/27 Arms Act is concerned, the court concerned has clearly observed herein as under:-
/kkjk& 25 o 27 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e dk l= ijh{k.k la[;k&198@2007 gS] ftlesa mldh fu'kkunsgh ij cjken gksuk dgk tkrk gSA cjkenxh ds rF; dks vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k&4 mifujh{kd jkts'oj izlkn ;kno }kjk fl) fd;k x;k gS o vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k&5 vkj{kh foJke flag us eqdnek vijk/k la[;k&783@2006 /kkjk&25@27 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e dh fpd ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 izn'kZ d&6 o dk;eh eqdnek th0Mh0 izn'kZ d&7 dks fl) fd;k gSA bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa us dgha ij ;g lk{; ugha fn;k gS fd blh cjken reUps ls vfHk;qDr }kjk Qk;j fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlls fd e`R;q gq;h FkhA i=koyh ij ek= fyUd lk{; fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh vk[;k gS] ftlesa ;g crk;k x;k gS fd cjken reUps ls ?kVukLFky ij cjken [kks[kk dkjrwl dks Qk;j fd;k x;k FkkA fu'kkunsgh ij cjken reUpk vfHk;qDr ds okLrfod :i ls v/;klu esa ugha ekuk tk,xk o vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr fd, x, vU; lkf{k;ksa us Hkh ;g lk{; ugha fn;k gS fd dfFkr cjken reUps ls vfHk;qDr vkyksd }kjk Qk;j fd;k x;k FkkA vfHk;kstu i{k /kkjk& 25 o 27 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vko';d vo;oksa dks fl) djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk 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) 1 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 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.
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.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 SP