Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3989 of 2012
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Brahma Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Shri Arun Kumar Singh learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.7.2012 by means of which accused respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149, 506 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 record 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:-
vr% vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk ?kVuk dkfjr fd;s tkus dk tks gsrqd n'kkZ;k x;k gS] lansg ls ijs lkfcr ugha gksrkA bl gsrqd dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s lcls vge xokg e`rd dh ekrk Jherh izseorh Fkh] ftls vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls lk{; esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k uk gh vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls gsrqd ds ckor iSlksa ds ysu&nsu lEcU/kh dksbZ fy[kk&i<+r nkf[ky dh x;hA vr% tks gsrqd ?kVuk ds yxHkx rhu ekg ckn n'kkZ;k x;k gS] oks la'k;iw.kZ izrhr gksrk gSA xokg ds c;ku ls Li"V gS fd ?kVukLFky ij ?kVuk ds ek= xokg lksjuflag ekStwn Fks] vU; lHkh xokg ?kVukLFky ij nsj ls igaqpsA bl xokg us eqfYte }kjk mlds ?kj esa /kedh nsuk crk;k gS tks dh vfo'oluh; gS] D;ksafd xokg us ;g ugha dgk fd tc og vius ?kj ls ?ksj esa vk;k rks mls vfHk;qDrx.k feys FksA vr% tc vfHk;qDrx.k xokg dks feys gh ugha rks mUgs ;g Hkh ugha irk gksxk fd bl xokg us ? kVuk ns[kh gS] vr% xokg dks /kedh nsus dk iz'u gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA mijksDr xokg vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr ,d ek= ?kVuk dk LorU= lk{kh Fkk] ftlds c;kuksa ls Li"V gS fd mlds }kjk ?kVuk ?kfVr gksrs gq;s ugha ns[kh x;h] uk gh mlus vfHk;qDrx.k dks ?kVuk dkfjr djus ds ckn ns[kk gSA bl xokg ds vfrfjDr izLrqr lHkh xokg firk&iq= gSa vkSj fgrc) lk{kh gSaA ih0MCyw&1 jkekSrkj us vius c;kuksa esa dgk gS fd mls ugha irk fd ?kVuk fdl le; ?kfVr gqbZ vkSj mls ugha irk fd og ?kVukLFky ij fdl le; igaqpkA tc og ?kVukLFky ij igaqpk rHkh mlus fjiksVZ fy[kh FkhA ?kVuk bl xokg ds vuqlkj mlds firk lksjuflag] vkseiky ds vfrfjDr jktcy o lrohj ds }kjk ns[kh x;h gSA xokg vkseiky ds }kjk fn;s x;s c;ku fo'oluh; lkfcr ugha gq;s rFkk jktcy o lrohj dks vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha fd;k x;kA lksjuflag us foospd dks fn;s x;s c;ku esa ,d ckj vfHk;qDrx.k dks ugha igpkuus dk dFku fd;k gS rFkk nwljh ckj igpkuus dh ckr dgh gS] ijUrq bl xokg ds c;ku dh iqf"V vU; lk{; ls ugha gksrh gS] rFkk ?kVuk dk tks gsrqd ?kVuk ds yxHkx rhu ekg ckn n'kkZ;k x;k gS] mls Hkh vfHk;kstu i{k lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA ih0MCyw0&1 jkekSrkj us vius c;kuksa esa dgk gS fd mlds xkWo dk cwpk flag gS] mlus gR;k dj j[kh gS] mlds f[kykQ gR;k dk eqdnek gSA xokg us foospd dks cwpkflag ds lEcU/k esa fn;s x;s c;ku ls Li"V :i ls dqN ugha crk;k gS vkSj bl ckr ls Hkh badkj fd;k fd mlus 'kd dh fcukg ij cwpk xzqi dk uke iqfyl dks crk;k FkkA ih0MCyw0&4 lksjuflag us vius c;kuksa esa dgk gS fd cwpk mQZ tlohj muds xkWo ds O;fDr gSa] tks cnek'k gSa vkSj ftldk lcdks irk gSA bu nksuksa xokgksa ds c;kuksa ls Li"V gS fd nksuksas dks ;g irk gS fd muds xkWo dk cwpkflag vkijkf/kd fdLe dk O;fDr FkkA blds ckotwn jkekSrkj us foospd dks cwpkflag ds }kjk gR;k dkfjr fd;s tkus dk 'kd trk;k] ftldh fcukg ij foospuk vxzlkfjr dh x;hA foospd dks xokg cuh rFkk v'kksd dqekj us cwpkflag rFkk mlds HkkbZ lrh'k }kjk ?kVuk dkfjr fd;s tkus ds mijkUr iqfy;k ds ikl feyuk crk;kA xokg jkekSrkj us vius c;kuksa esa dgk gS fd mlus Mj dh otg ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds uke ugha crk;s FksA oknh dk ;g dSlk Mj gS fd mlus gR;k djus okys vius iM+ksfl;ksa ds uke iqfyl dks ugha crk;s] cfYd xkWo ds ukeh cnek'kksa ij 'kd tkfgj fd;kA oknh dks ;fn bl ckr dk Mj gksrk fd mlds HkkbZ ds gR;kjs mlds o mlds vU; ifjokj okyksa dh gR;k dj ldrs gSa rks og 'kd dh fcukg ij dHkh Hkh cwpkflag }kjk ?kVuk dkfjr fd;s tkus dk dFku foospd ds le{k ugha djrkA ih0MCyw&3 ;ksxs'k us vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd mls jkLrs esa iqfy;k ds ikl ikWpksa vfHk;qDrx.k feys Fks]ftuds gkFk esa reUps Fks vkSj og ?ksj esa pys x;sA ;fn vfHk;qDrx.k dks oknhi{k ls dksbZ jaft'k Fkh rks oks ;g ns[ks tkus ij dh e`rd ds HkkbZ us vfHk;qDrx.k dks ns[k o igpku fy;k gS] mldh Hkh ekSds ij gR;k dj nsrsA blds vfrfjDr foospd sks fn;s x;s vius c;ku esa xokg cuh rFkk v'kksd dqekj ftUgs vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha fd;k gS] mUgsa iqfy;k ds ikl rhu vkneh feys FksA ;g laHko ugha gS fd ;ksxs'k dks iqfy;k ds ikl ikWp vfHk;qDrx.k feys gks vkSj cuh vkSj v'kksd dqekj dks mlh le; iqfy;k ds ikl rhu cnek'k feys gks] ftUgs og igpku ugha ik;sA mijksDr ls bl ckor Hkh la'k; mRiUu gksrk gS fd ?kVuk dkfjr fd;s tkus esa rhu vFkok ikWp yksx 'kkfey FksA And thus in view of the aforesaid evidence on record the court concerned has concluded herein as under:-
iqfyl ds }kjk ?kVukLFky ls izn'kZd&15 ds vUrxZr nks vnn [kksdk dkjrwl 315 cksj rFkk nks vnn cqySV cjken dh x;hA ftu reUpksa ls pUnziky dh xksyh ekjdj gR;k dh x;h] mls vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA izLrqr ekeys esa ;ksxs'k] vkseiky] lrohj rFkk jktcy }kjk fnukad 17-2-2005 dks 'kiFki= fn;s x;sA buesa ls xokg vkseiky us vius 'kiFki= esa dgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us mldh duiVh ij reUpk j[kdj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nh FkhA blls rFkk xokgksa ds c;ku rFkk iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ls Li"V gS fd pUnziky dh gR;k xksyh ekjdj dh x;h FkhA ;gka rd dh ?kVukLFky ls [kksdk dkjrwlksa o cqySV Hkh cjken dh x;h] ijUrq ftl gfFk;kj ls e`rd dks xksyh ekjh x;h Fkh] mls vfHk;kstu i{k ds }kjk foospuk cnyus ij Hkh izLrqr ugha fd;k tk ldkA ftlls bl ckr ij feyrk gS fd e`rd pUnziky dh gR;k cwpkflag o mlds lkfFk;ksa ds }kjk dj nh x;h vkSj ?kVuk dkfjr fd;s tkus ds ckn ls og yksx reUps lfgr Qjkj gks x;s] bl dkj.k ls iqfyl ds }kjk og reUpk cjken ugha fd;k x;k] ftldk iz;ksx gR;k dkfjr djus esa fd;k x;kA vr% iqfyl }kjk reUpk izLrqr uk djuk Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk pUnziky dh gR;k fd;s tkus ds ckcr la'k; mRiUu djrk 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) 1 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.
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, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.
Let lower court record be sent back to the court concerned.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 SP