Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1290 of 1997
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Alok S/O Chandbal & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- V.S. Mishra
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.02.1997, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.10, Ghaziabad, in Session Trial No. 322 of 1993, under Section 147, 148, 307/149 IPC, Police Station Niwadi, District Ghaziabad, by means of which the present accused-respondent namely Alok, Avanish @ Arun, Raju @ Raj Bhushan, Anmish @ Anirudh and Mahivir, have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 IPC.
We have heard Sri Patanjali Mishra appearing for the State at length. We have also perused the finds as has been recorded by the trial court and find that the trial court has give cogent reasons for arriving at the findings, based upon which the verdict of acquittal has been returned. The court has clearly observed that after discussing the entire evidence on record thread where. The manner in which the incident is alleged to have taken place has not been proved, even the place of occurrence appears to be doubtful. The court has further observed and recorded the findings herein as under:-
^^--------------ftu lkf{k;ksa dk ekSds ij mifLFkr gksuk izFke lwpuk fjiksZV esa mfYyf[kr gS] mudh la[;k pkj gS vkSj mlds vykok xokg ikys dks Hkh ?kVuk LFky ij jkefuokl ds lkFk gh vkuk crk;k x;k gS fd mUgsa vkSj [kklrkSj ls muesa ls ikys dks tks fu"i{k lk{kh Fkk] D;ksa is'k ugha fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj ek= jkefuokl tks Li"V rkSj ls fgrc} lk{kh gS] dks gh D;ksa is'k fd;k tk jgk gS] blfy;s eS le{krk gwaW fd orkZeku eqdnesa esa mDr lanfHkZr uthj ds fl}kUr ykxw gksrs gSa vkSj ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd vfHk;kstu lk{; fo'okluh; ugha gSA --------------vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksaa ds c;kuksa ij fopkj djus ij ge ikrs gSa fd muds c;kuksa esa vkSj vfHk;kstu ds dFkkud esa lalxrrk Hkh ugha gSA vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds c;kuksa esa ;g ckr vkbZ gS fd 'ks"k nks vfHk;qDr vkyksd o vouh'k ftl ij reUps Fks] us Hkh Qk;j fd;s FksA fodze flag vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0&1 us viuh ftjg esa dgk gS fd ckdh eqyfteku us xksfy;kaW Hkkxrs gq, pykbZ FkhA ujsUnz vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0&2 us vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd vkyksd o v:.k us vius dVVs ls xksfy;kaW pykbZ tks nhokj esa yxh o gok esa fudy x;h] ijUrq jkefuokl vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0&2 us U;k;ky; ds ihBklhu vf/kdkjh ds ,d iz'u ds mRrj esa dgk gS fd rhsuksa qyfteku us ,d&,d Qk;j fd;k Fkk vkSj rhuksa xksfy;kaW ge nksuksa ¼ujsUnz vkSj jkefuokl½ dh vksj pykbZ FkhA tgkaW ;g c;ku vlaxfriw.kZ gS] ogha ij ;g ckr Hkh xkSj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS fd jkefuokl vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0&3 us bl dfBukbZ dks Hkkaidj fd mlds ekSds ij ekStwn gksrs gq, vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk ml ij xksyh u pykbZ tk;s] ;g laHkkO; ugha gksxk] ;g ckr dgha gS fd ml ij o ujsUnz ij xksfy;kaW pykbZ x;h tfd ;g vfHk;kstu dk dFkkud ugha gS cfYd ;g gS fd jkefuokl dh gR;k dk dksbZ izHkko ugha fd;k x;k vkSj fodze flag vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0&1 us Li"V :i ls vius c;ku es Hkh dgk gS fd vkyksd o v:.k us Hkh tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls Qk;j fd;s FksA ujsUnz ds ugha yxs] nhokj esa Qk;j yxsA -------------vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds c;kuksa esa ;g ckr vkbZ gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k v:.k o vkyksd ds Qk;j esa ls ,d Qkk;j dh xksyh nhokj esa yxh FkhA xokg QnZ jktsUnz vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0&6 us vius ftjg esa dgk gS fd dksBs dh nf{k.kh nhokj esa cqyV Fkh tks mlds lkeus njksxk th us cjken dh Fkh ijUrq ?kVuk LFky ds ekufp= izn'kZ d&7 esa xksyh dksBs dh nhokj ls cjken gksuk ugha fn;k x;k gS cfYd ^^ch** LFku tgkaW ls cqyV cjken gksuk uD'ksa essa fn[kk;k x;k gS] og dksBs ds ckgj eaxw ds ?kj dh mRrjh nhokj gSA vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd ekSds ij pkj tksMh pIiy cjken gqbZ tks vfHk;qDrksa }kjk NksMh xbZ FkhA vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls dgk x;k gS fd fnukad 29-7-92 dh jkr esa tc vUos"k.kdrkZ ekSds ij vk;k rks mls [kwu Hkh fn[kkbZ fn;k Fkk vkSj pIiys Hkh] ,slk mlus viuh ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k gS] ijUrq mlus dsl Mk;jh esa bl rF; dk dksbZ mYys[k ugha fd;k tks ekSads ij pIiyksa dh ekStwnxh esaq lUnsg mRiUu djrk gS vkSj ;g n'kkZrk gS fd ;g dFkkud ckn dks tksM x;k gSA dqN Hkh gks] bl ckr dk dksbZ lk{; ugh gS fd ;s pIiys vfHk;qDrksa }kjk NksMh x;h vkSj lk{; esa ;g ckr vkbZ gS fd ;s pIiys ogha gS rks lkekU;r;k cktkj esa feyrh gSaA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku odhy dk rdZ gS fd pIiys NksMs tkus dh ckr ek= ;g iznf'kZr djus ds fy;s ckn dks tksMh x; gSA fd ?kVuk esa ikap vfHk;qDr 'kkfey Fks ijUrq ;g laHkkO; LokHkkfod izrhr ugha gksrk fd tc ikaWp esas ls rhu vfHk;qDr vXus; vL= ls lqlfTtr Fks vkSj nwljh vksj pqVSy ;k fdlh xokg ds ikl dksbZ gfFk;kj ugha Fkk vkSj ujsUnz dks xksyh yx pqdh Fkh] vU; yksx nhokj ds lgkjs [kMs gksdj vius dks cpkus easa yxs gq, Fks] 'kksj ij dksbZ ckgjh O;fDr gfFk;kj ysdj vk;k gks] ,slk lk{; esa ugha gS rks fdl dkj.k vfHk;qDrksa dks ogkaW ls pIiys NksMdj Hkkxus dh vko';drk iMhA eSaus bl rdZ ij fopkj fd;k vkSj ik;k fd ;g rdZ lkjghu ugha gSA --------------?kVuk jk=h dh gS vkSj ekSds ij fctyh tyuk crk;k x;k gSA lk{; easa ;g ckr vkbZ gS fd frdfM;k esa cYo ty jgk Fkk ijUrq vUos"k.kdrkZ us ?kVuk LFky ds ekufp= esa frdfM;kaW ;k ?ksj esa ,slk dksbZ LFkku ugha fn[kk;k gS] tgkaW ij mlus cYo yxk gqqvk ik;k gksA ftlls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk lds fd ?kVuk ds le; veqd LFkku ij cYo ty jgk Fkk] blls ?kVuk LFky ij d`f=e izdk'k dh ekStwnxh esa Hkh lUnsg mRiUu gksrk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo)ku odhy dk rdZ gS fd vUos"k.kdrkZ us viuh ftjg esa Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fnukad 29-7-92 ls 111-8-92 rd ds dsl Mk;jh ds ipksZ esa {ks=kf/kdkjh ds y?kq gLrk{kj ds uhps dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugha gS vkSj fnukad 16-8-92 ds ipsZ ij fdlh {ks=kf/kdkjh ds gLrk{kj Hkh ugha gSaA ,slh lwjr esa ;g laHkkO; o LokHkkfod izrhr gksrk gS fd rQrh'k ds lHkh ipsZ ckn dks bDV~Bs {ks=kf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa Hksts x;s vkSj ;g rQrh'k okLro esa mu frfFk;ksa ij ugha dh x;h] ftu frfFk;kas ij fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k gSA** And based upon the said observation/findings the court has concluded herein as under:-
^^--------------mijksDr fopkjfoe'kZ ds vk/kkj ij ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyrk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k dks ujsUnz dh gR;k dk iz;kl djus dk dksbZ gsrqd;k rqjUr gsrqd ugha FkkA izFke lwpuk fjiksZV lafnX?k nLrkost gSA vfHk;kstu dk dFkkud laHkkO; o LokHkkfod ugha gSA vfHk;kstu ds i{k dFku ds leFkZ esa fu"d"kZ l{kh is'k ugha fd;s x;s gSs vkSj tks lk{kh is'k fd;s x;s gS] muds c;ku fof/k }kjk fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa ij [kjs ugha mrjs gSaA vfHk;qDr dks bl ekeys esa >wBk Qalk;k tkuk vlaHkkO; ugah gSA** After perusal of the impugned judgment which 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.
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.
At this stage, 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 interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted.
Accordingly leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 VKG