Court No. - 34
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3925 of 2009
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Anuj And Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This appeal has been preferred alongwith the application for leave to appeal by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 9.1.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.10, Muzaffar Nagar in Session Trial No. 752 of 2007 at case crime no. 97 of 2001 under Sections 323, 332, 333, 353, 352, 224, 511 and 427 IPC, P.S. Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar whereby respondents accused have been acquitted for the charges framed against them.
Heard learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the entire record.
In this matter, the impugned and order has been passed by the trial court observing that 62-65 persons were said to be involved in this case. Witnesses examined in the matter are police personnel. They were not aware about the names of the accused respondents. Names of the accused respondents were disclosed by accused Zishan but Zishan has not been examined nor any test identification parade was conducted in this case to identify the accused. If the observations recorded by the trial court are scrutinized with the evidence of prosecution witnesses, discussion made in the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence, no illegality or infirmity is shown in the impugned order. There are major contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses. Observation recorded by the trial court that identity of the accused respondents has not been established by the prosecution need no interence.
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."
On close scrutiny of entire evidence in consonance with the submissions advanced by the learned A.G.A., observations recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order need no interference.
Application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.
Since application for leave to appeal is rejected, Government Appeal is also dismissed.
Since application for leave to appeal is rejected, Government appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 safi