Court No. - 41
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2109 of 2013
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Dharmpal & 3 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 28.1.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Court No.14, Muzaffarnagar in Sessions Trial No. 1355 of 2003 (State versus Dharmpal and others) arising out of case crime No. 251 of 2002 under Sections 452, 307, 325, 323, 504, 506 IPC, police station Bhopa, district Muzaffarnagar whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.
Heard Sri Vinod Kant learned A.A.G. assisted by 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, first information report was lodged on 06.9.2002, pursuant to which investigation proceeded which resulted in filing of charge sheet and as the accused-respondents 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 the statement of the prosecution witnesses of fact would go to show that the incident took place and the injury was found on the person of the injured and the prosecution witnesses have proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, 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 first information report was lodged after four days of the alleged incident without there being any reasonable explanation for the same. There are contradictions with regard to place of occurrence and it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that who caused injuries on the person of the injured besides there being contradiction in the statement of witnesses of fact.
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