Court No. - 75
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3348 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ashok Kumar And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the lower court's record.
Vide impugned judgment and order, accused-respondents were convicted for the offence under sections 323/34 and 325/34 IPC. Since offence under sections 308 and 504 IPC was not established by the prosecution, respondents were acquitted for those offence.
This government appeal has been preferred along with leave to appeal application with the prayer to set-aside the impugned judgment and order dated 26.3.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Agra acquitting the accused-respondents in Sessions Trial No.492 of 2000 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar and Another) under Sections 308 and 504 IPC, P.S. Malpura, District Agra. Prayer has also been made to impose punishment instead of extending the benefit of first offender to the respondents.
It is argued by learned A.G.A. that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have clearly supported the prosecution case. The 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 the impugned judgment and order. There was sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused- respondents. 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.
A perusal of the impugned judgment and order as well as the lower court's record reveals that the Trial Court did not find the offence under section 308 IPC proved from the prosecution evidence. If the statement of witnesses recorded during trial as well as the medical evidence are compared with the finding of the Trial Court, observation recorded by the Trial Court that offence under section 308 IPC is not made out cannot be termed to be illegal. As far as releasing the respondents extending the benefit of first offender on probation is concerned, respondents were convicted for the offence under sections 323, 325 IPC. Prosecution was not able to show any criminal history or previous conviction of the respondents nor there is any evidence to show that respondents have violated any condition imposed upon them while releasing them on their furnishing a personal bond and sureties. If such is the position, then keeping in view the nature of offence, finding of the Trial Court recorded in the impugned judgment and order cannot be termed to be illegal. Trial Court was enough competent to release the respondents extending the benefit of first offender instead of sentencing them instantaneously.
If the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are compared with the evidence available on the lower court's record 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