Court No. - 41
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 5946 of 2011
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Dhani Ram & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
This government appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 05.7.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge E.C.P, Court No.2 Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 511 of 2007 (State versus Dhaniram and others) arising out of case crime No. 37 of 1997 under Sections 148, 307/149 IPC, police station Kurra, district Mainpuri whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.
Heard learned A.G.A. on application seeking leave to appeal and perused the impugned judgment and lower court's record which has been received.
For the alleged incident which took place on 12.4.1997 at about 10.00 a.m., first information report was lodged pursuant to which investigation proceeded which resulted in filing of charge sheet and as the accused pleaded not guilty, they were put to trial, which concluded in passing of the judgment and order of acquittal which is under challenge in the present appeal.
Learned A.G.A. states that as per prosecution version, on the information given by the informant regarding Raghuveer Singh, he was arrested and sent to jail, on account of which he was having animosity and on account of that animosity on 12.4.1997 at about 10.00 a.m. Raghuveer Singh, Chaniram, Ailam Singh, Pappu and Ravindra Singh went to the hut of the informant and fired upon him, his brother and father with intention to kill them, in which father of the informant was injured. It is further stated that the accused respondents fled after threatening the informant and others.
Learned A.G.A. contends that the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt and injury was also sustained by the injured, therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
After hearing the learned A.G.A. and after perusing the judgment and order impugned and the lower court record, it is apparent that the prosecution version does not corroborate with the medical evidence on record as the injured had stated that he had received injuries on the left side but the doctor has opined that the injured has received injuries on right side and the same are superficial in nature. Record further reveals that there are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses which does not prove the guilt of the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt even the motive which has been shown is very weak.
The trial court after considering the entire facts and circumstances and evidence on record and after hearing the parties and after dealing with every point, returned the findings of acquittal and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the observation/findings of acquittal recorded by the court below. The view taken by the learned trial court is a possible view.
There does not appear any reason to interfere with the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court after a detailed appreciation of evidence.
It is to be kept in mind that the present appeal is against acquittal and the golden thread which runs through the administration of criminal justice while hearing the appeal against the acquittal is that even if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and other towards their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted and the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed by the appellate court. The reason is that while passing the order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is re-inforced.
In Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujrat; 1996 (9) SCC 225, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : -
"...in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocence unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is, re-enforced and strengthened by the trial court "
In Mahadeo Laxman Sarane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 705, the Apex Court has observed that : -
"It is true, that the settled legal position is that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the accused and the other against him. In such a case if the trial court takes a view in favour of the accused, the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal."
In C. Antony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1, the Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-
"Unless the findings of trial court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of the material on record."
In Sirajuddin Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 4 SCC 375, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle in the following words:-
"Where trial Court's order of acquittal is based on a reasonably possible view, High court should not, as a rule of prudence, disturb the acquittal."
Considering the facts and circumstances in wake of the above cited legal position, we do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant.
The application seeking leave to appeal is rejected and consequently the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 faraz