Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2367 of 2008
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Balkishun & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Shri Jagdamba Prasad Singh learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.11.2007 by means of which accused respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 436, 429 and 506 (11) IPC.
Learned A.G.A. has strongly pressed the application with the contention that the prosecution evidence has not been appreciated by the court concerned in its correct perspective. He has submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial judge is against the evidence on record. He next submitted that the learned trial judge has committed a patent error of law and ignored the material evidence on record while holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused respondents beyond the reasonable doubt.
We have heard learned AGA at great length. We have also perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded a number of categorical findings, relevant of which are being extracted herein as under:-
rF; ds nksuks lk{khx.k us ?kVuk jkr ds 01 cts dh nf'kZr gksuk dgk gSA ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj [kijSy ds edku ds nf{k.k e.MbZ esa Fkk rFkk ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj edku ds mRrjh e.MbZ esa FkkA nksuks ds gh lk{; esa vk;k gS fd nksuks lk{khx.k jkr esa 01 cts is'kkc djus mBsA ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dks mRrj ls nf{k.k rjQ Hkkxrs gq, ns[kk x;k rFkk mRrj tkus ij mlus ns[kk fd e.MbZ ty jgh gSA mldh lk{; esa ;g Hkh vk;k gS fd tc og mBk rks e.MbZ ty jgh Fkh vkSj ,d pkjikbZ ds cjkcj ty x;h FkhA lk{kh ds vuqlkj og is'kkc djus mBk Fkk vkSj is'kkc Hkh dj pqdk Fkk rc vfHk;qDrx.k dks Hkkxrs gq, ns[kk FkkA blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd 01 cts tc xokg ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj mBk mlds igys gh e.MbZ ,d pkjikbZ ds cjkcj ty xbZ FkhA iz'u ;g gS fd D;k e.MbZ ,d pkjikbZ ds cjkcj ty pqdh Fkh vkSj lk{kh }kjk is'kkc Hkh fd;k x;k blds ckn Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k bl lk{kh ds lkeus ls Hkkxus ds fy, izrh{kk djrs jgsA bl ifjisz{; esa bl lk{kh us viuh ftjg esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd is'kkc djus ds ckn og fpYyk;k fd vkx yx xbZA blh ifjizs{; esa ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj dk c;ku ns[kk tk; rks mlds c;ku esa vk;k gS fd og 01 cts jkr esa is'kkc djus mBk vkSj vknfe;ksa ds ckr djus dh vkokt lquh rc tkdj ns[kk fd vfHk;qDr ckyfd'kqu [kjirokj dk yqDdk cuk;s ftlesa dqcsj vfHk;qDr us vkx yxk;kA yqDdk ls vkx yxkus okyh ckr ds lEcU/k esa xokg us U;k;ky; esa igyh ckj c;ku fn;kA foospuk esa mlds }kjk ;g dgk x;k Fkk fd vfHk;qDrx.k ekfpl ls vkx yxk jgs FksA xokg ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj dk mDr c;ku iwoZ c;ku esa lq/kkj gSA ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj ds c;ku esa i`"B 5 ij ;g vk;k gS fd mlds HkkbZ ds vkus ij mldh uhan [kqyh FkhA mlds HkkbZ fpYyk;s Fks rc mldh uhan [kqyhA mYys[kuh; gS fd ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj ds c;ku esa vk;k gS fd mlus vfHk;qDrx.k dks Hkkxrs mRrj ls nf[ku dh rjQ ns[kk FkkA ;g ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj us mRrj ls nf[ku rjQ vfHk;qDrx.k dks Hkkxrs ns[kk vkSj ;g ns[kk fd mRrj e.MbZ esa ftlesa ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj lks;k gS vkx yxh gS vksj ml fLFkfr esa mlds }kjk 'kksj fd;k x;k vkSj mlds 'kksj ij mlds HkkbZ ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj dh uhan [kqyh rks bl fLFkfr dh dYiuk ugh dh tk ldrh gS fd ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj nksuks vfHk;qDrx.k dks vkx yxkrs gq, ns[kk gks tSlk fd mlds }kjk c;ku fn;k x;k gSA ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dks vkx yxkrs ns[kkuk dk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa dksbZ mYys[k ugh gSA ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj ds c;ku esa ;g Hkh fojks/kkHkkl i`"B 03 ij vk;k gS fd mlds fpYykus ij lcls igys mldk HkkbZ vFkkZr ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj vk;kA vfHk;qDrx.k dks vkx yxkrs ns[ks tkus ds lEcU/k esa ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj dk c;ku iw.kZr;k fojks/kkHkklh gSA nksuks gh lk{khx.k ,d nwljs ds fpYykus ij mBus dh ckr dgrs gSA ;fn lk{kh ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj ds fpYykus ij ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj mBk rks ;g fuf'pr gS fd mlds }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dks vkx yxkrs gq, ns[kus dk vfHk;kstu dFkkud iw.kZr;k xyr gS] D;kasfd vkx igys gh yx pqdh Fkh vkSj blls ;g ckr Hkh xyr fl) gksrh gS fd ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj ds fpYykus ij mldk HkkbZ vk;kA rhu vyx&vyx d`R; tkM+s dh jkr esa ,d cts ,d lkFk gh gksuk la;ksx gS vFkok jfpr lk{; gSA mDr rhu ?kVuk,a fd vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk vkx yxk;h tk jgh Fkh rHkh lk{kh ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj vyx e.MbZ ls rFkk ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj vyx e.MbZ ls ,d lkFk is'kkc djus 01 cts gh mBsA mijksDr vfHk;kstu i{k dk dFku la;ksx lk{; dh vfo'oluh;rk dks nf'kZr djrk gSA fdlh Hkh lk{kh }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dk ihNk fd;s tkus dk dksbZ lk{; ugh gSA ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj }kjk nf{k.k okyh e.MbZ ls 12&13 QqV dh nwjh ls vfHk;qDrx.k dks uoEcj ekg dh jkr esaa fdl rjg ns[kk vkSj igpkuk x;k bldk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugh gSA ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj dh ftjg esa vk;k gS fd tc og mBk rks e.MbZ ty jgh Fkh vkSj ,d pkjikbZ ds cjkcj ty x;h FkhA tc mDr lk{kh mBk vkSj e.MbZ ty jg Fkh rks ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj dk ;g c;ku fd og is'kkc djus mBk Fkk vkSj is'kkc Hkh dj pqdk Fkk vkSj mlds ckn fpYyk;kA ;fn fdlh O;fDr drs ?kj esa vkx yxh gks vkSj mBrs gh vkx mlus yxs ns[kk gks rks ;g LokHkkfod ugh gS fd igys iwjh rjg ls is'kkc djsxk mlds ckn 'kksj djsxkA blls Hkh ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj dh lk{; esa vfo'oluh;rk nf'kZr gksrh gSA ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj ds vuqlkj og [kfV;k fcLrj fudky ugh ik;kA ih0MCyw0&2 ds lk{; esa vk;k gS fd vkx yxus okyh e.MbZ esa [kfV;k Fkh gh ughA ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj ds vuqlkj og lwvj ikyus dk /kU/kk djrk Fkk ijUrq mlds ikl ek= ,d ekg dk lwvj dk cPpk gh Fkk] 03 eqfxZ;ka 03 ekg dh FkhA ;| fi fd ;g ckr vlEHko ugh gS fd ?kVuk ds le; ,d gh lwvj jgk gks ;g Hkh lk{; esa vk;k gS fd lwvj ,d ekg dk Fkk vkSj mls [kwVs esa cka/kk x;k FkkA lc dqN ty x;k ijUrq [kwVka ugh tyk vkSj mls uD'kk utjh esa fn[kk;k Hkh x;k gSA fuf'pr :i ls tehu ds fookn dks ysdj i{kdkjksa ds e/; igys ls jaft'k pyh vk jgh gS vr% ;g i;kZIr gsrqd gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k dks ?kVuk esa uketn fd;k tk;A ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ?kVuk ds lk<+s 17 ?k.Vs ckn vafdr djkbZ xbZ gSA mldk dksbZ mfpr dkj.k Hkh nf'kZr ugh gSA blls Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k dks uketn djus esa fopkj foe'kZ djus dh lksp oknh i{k dh rjQ ls nf'kZr gksrh gSA izR;{kn'khZ lk{khx.k ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj rFkk ih0MCyw0&2 QkStnkj vkil esa lxs HkkbZ gS fuf'pr :i ls fgrc) lk{kh gSA ftu LorU= lk{khx.k dk ekSds ij vkuk nf'kZr fd;k x;k gSA mUgs ijhf{kr ugh djk;k x;k gSA mijksDr foospuk ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd ;|fi fd oknh ds nf'kZr mRrjh e.MbZ vkx ls tyh ijUrq mDr e.MbZ esa vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk vkx yxk;h x;h bldk lansg ls ijs lk{; ugh gSA vkx yxus ls oknh dh 03 eqfxZ;k o ,d lwvj dk cPpk Hkh ty dj ejk ijUrq vkx vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk yxkbZ xbZ ;g lansg ls ijs fl) ugh gksrk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k ij yxk;s x;s vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 436 o 429 Hkk0na0la0 dks lansg ls ijs fl) djus esa vfHk;kstu i{k vlQy jgk gSA tgka rd /kkjk 506 Hkk0na0la0 dk iz'u gS ?kVuk ds fnukad 19- 11-+01 dks jkr 01 cts vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk oknh eqdnek o mlds ifjokj okyksa dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj vfHk=kl dkfjr djus dk dksbZ lk{; ugh gS u gh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ;g ckr vk;h gS fd vkx yxus okyh jkr Hkh ,slh dksbZ /kedh nh xbZ gksA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ;g ckr vo'; vk;h gS fd ?kVuk fn0 19-11-01 ds 02 fnu igys vfHk;qDrx.k us oknh eqdnek ds ifjokj ds yksxks dks eka cgu dh xkyh o tku ekjus dh /kedh nsdj ekjk ihVkA crkSj lk{kh ih0MCyw0&1 dsnkj us U;k;ky; esa fn;s x;s vius c;ku esa 02 fnu iwoZ dh ?kVuk ds ckjs esa fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ c;ku ugha fn;k gS vkSj u gh ih0MCyw0&02 QkStnkj us gh mDr lEcU/k esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ c;ku fn;k gS vr% /kkjk 506 Hkk0na0la0 ds vkjksi ls lEcfU/kr fdlh Hkh izdkj dk lk{; vfHk;kstu i{k dh rjQ ls izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS vr% vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) /kkjk 506 Hkk0na0la0 dk vkjksi lk{; ds vHkko esa fl) ugh gksrk gSA After perusal of the impugned judgment it 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) 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.
Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected.
Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 SP