Court No. - 75
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1811 of 2004 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ambrish @ Titu Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocatev.S.Mishra
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
This government appeal has been preferred along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.11.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Moradabad acquitting the accused-respondent in Sessions Trial No.130 of 1999 (State Vs. Ambrish alias Titu) under Section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad.
It is argued by learned A.G.A. that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Recovery was supported by prosecution witnesses. Trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and reached on a wrong and erroneous conclusion acquitting the accused-respondents by passing an illegal order. There was sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused- respondents. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is erroneous, illegal and perverse. Hence, prayer has been made to grant leave to appeal and to allow the appeal setting aside the impugned judgment and order.
I have considered the submissions raised by learned A.G.A.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, on the basis of statement made by the accused-respondent under section 161 Cr.P.C. for recovery of the weapon said to have been used in commission of offence under sections 302/201 IPC, accused-respondent was taken into police custody remand and recovery was made by the respondent at the place of occurrence. Trial Court while passing the impugned order was of the view that recovery was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Independent witnesses have not been examined. It is not clear whether the recovered knife was actually used in commission of the offence under section 302/201 IPC or not. There was no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Place of recovery was also accessible to general public. Trial Court acquitted the respondent, as prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are minutely analyzed in light of the evidence discussed in it and in consonance with the submission advanced by the learned AG.A., no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned judgment and order. Findings recorded by the Trial Court are based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court.
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."
Thus, the application moved by the appellant - State to grant leave to appeal for the reason discussed here-in-above is not liable to be allowed and same is rejected.
Since the application for grant of leave to appeal is rejected, the appeal is also not liable to be admitted and same is dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 ss