Court No. - 11
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7313 of 2009
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ashok Kumar Singh & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- D.R. Chaudhary/G.A.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C No. 2 Gorakhpur in S.T. No. 411 of 1996 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and others), by this impugned judgment Tria Court has acquitted the accused/respondents Ashok Kumar Singh, Jung Bahadur, Lallan Singh and Raghvar Singh from the charge under sections 3 (1) (10) and section 3 (1) (5) S.C/S.T Act.
In nutshell the prosecution case is that the complainant Rampreet who is scheduled caste was raising the wall to construct the house under the scheme of Harizan Awas Vikas Parishad. But on 30.01.1992 at about 4.00 Raghuvar Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh and there companions reached there carrying with weapons in their hand and hurled abused to the complainant and threatened him to kill and also demolished the wall of the complainant.
The Trial Court has given the findings in respect of the ownership of the land over which the disputed wall was constructed as here in below:
,& pwafd oknh us Lo;a ;g Lkk{; eas Lohdkj fd;k gS fd fookfnr Hkfw e ds lEcU/k eas nksukas i{kkas eas tehu dk eqdnek pyk gS vkSj fookfnr Hkwfe dk ua0 451 gSA 451 uEcj ds LokfeRo vkSj dCtk n[ky ds vfHkys[k vfHk;qDr ds uke ls ntZ gSA ,slh fLFkfr eas ih0 MCy0w 1 dk ;g lk{; fd fookfnr Hkfw e ua0 451 ij mldk dCtk n[ky gS vkSj pkj ih<h ls mldk dCtk n[ky gS rFkk ?kVuk ds le; Hkh og dCts eas iqf"V ugha gks jgh gSA Fkk] bl rF; dh ;qfDRk;qDr lUnsg ls ijs ch& fookfnr Hkwfe ij ?kVuk ds le; oknh ds dCtk n[ky dks vfHk;kstu i{k us ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs iq"V ugha fd;k gSA ;fn ?kVuk ds le; fnoky fxjus ls ljou dks pksV vkbZ rks fnukad 30-01-92 dks vk;h pksVkas dsk vfHk;ktus i{k fl) dj ldrk Fkk ftlls ?kVuk dh lR;rk iq"V gksrh] ysfdu ljou dh pksVkas ijh{k.k fd;s tkus okys MkDVj ds }kjk fnukda 30-01-92 dh pksVks ugh ikbZ xbZ cfYd ?kVuk ds nks fnu ckn os pksVas rkth ikbZ xbZ ;fn fookfnr tehu ij iwoZtkas ds le; ls oknh vkckn Fkk rks dCts ls lEcfU/kr jktLo vfHkys[kkas eas oknh ;k mlds iwoZtks dk uke ntZ gksrkA ,sls dCts o LokfeRo dk dksbZ Hkh vfHkys[k vfHk;kstu i{k us nkf[ky ugha fd;k gSA fookfnr Hkwfe dk uEcj& 451 vfHk;kstu i{k us Lohdkj fd;k gSA 451 uEcj ij pwafd vfHk;kstu i{k us oknh ds dCtk n[ky dks iq"V ugha fd;k gSa ,slh fLFkfr eas vfHk;ktus i{k dk ;g dFku fd jkeizhr dks vuqlfpw r tkfr dk lnL; tkurs gq, vfHk;qDrx.k us mldh Hkwfe ls mldks csn[ky djus ds fy;s vf/kdkjkas ds miHkksx eas gLr{ksi fd;k] bl rF; dh ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs iqf"V ugha gksrh 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) 11 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 moreso in view of the fact that more than 26 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 1992.
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 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 :- 23.8.2018 Vikram