Court No. - 75
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4149 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Dharam Pal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
This government appeal has been preferred along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.4.2003 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Bulandshahar acquitting the accused-respondents in Sessions Trial No.767 of 1996 (State Vs. Dharam Pal and others) under Sections 308/34, 324 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar.
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. Findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order are perverse and illegal. 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 an illegal and unjustified impugned order. There was sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused-respondents. Therefore, the view taken by the trial Court is erroneous, illegal and perverse. 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.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order was of the view that offence was said to be committed on 16.6.1995, but the F.I.R. was lodged on 17.6.1995. P.W.1 has made contradictory statement about the manner of preparing the written report and lodging of the F.I.R. Prosecution was also not able to prove the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. Blood stained clothes and soils have not been taken by the investigating officer nor the same were produced before the Court. It has also been observed by the Trial Court that independent witnesses were although cited in the F.I.R., but they were not examined. The investigating officer has not made fair investigation in the matter. There are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses which creates doubt regarding the manner of incident. Trial Court further observed that P.W.1 (complainant) and P.W.2 in their statement have stated that all three accused persons armed with lathi, danda and sword committed marpeet with the injured for about 15 minutes. When three persons commit marpeet for 15 minutes, the injured must have received several injuries, however, the doctor, who medically examined the injured persons, has found only one incised wound on the person of both the injured and no lathi/danda injury has been found. In these circumstances, the manner of incident is not found probable. If the time of lodging of the F.I.R. is not taken into consideration, then also material eyewitness accounts were not examined to support the prosecution case. Place of incident is also not established. Medical evidence does not support the prosecution version. If the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are analyzed with the submissions made by the learned A.G.A. as also the evidence discussed in the present matter, 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 :- 30.4.2019 ss