Court No. - 11
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4077 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Girjashanker And Others Counsel for Appellant :- GA
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.12.2008 passed by Special Judge(EC Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in S.T. No. 936 of 2004 (State Vs. Girjashankar and others), by this impugned judgment Trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondents Girjashankar Patel, Uday Pratap Singh Patel @ Loha and Ramesh Pratap Singh from the charge under sections 498A and 306 IPC.
In nutshell the prosecution case is that the sister of the complainant Urmila Devi aged about 24 years was married on 29.05.1996 to Loha @ Uday Pratap Singh Patel. Girjashankar who is the father-in-law of Urmila Devi demanded Rs. 20,000/- from him, when he denied that I do not have money because I have purchased bricks. Then, he went away but again after one week he came back to the resident of the complainant and demanded money and when complainant did not give money to the father-in-law of his sister then he became angry and he started tourchering his sister and due to this tourchering she took some poisonous substance on 03.07.2004 and she expired.
The Trial Court has held that the prosecution has failed to prove that for dowry, Urmila Devi was being tourchering by the accused/respondents. The Trial Court has accepted the defence version wherein it is stated that the deceased Urmila Devi was seriously ill and she was not troubling due to her disease therefore, she committed suicide. In support of their version accused/respondents have examined DW 3, Dr. Sunil Kumar Saha has stated that deceased Urmila Devi was under his treatment and she was complaining about the headache and she also told that she is suffering from this disease for last 6 and 7 years. The prescription paper of the doctor is also filed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial Court is not a possible or plausible view. There is not illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment.
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 moreso in view of the fact that more than 14 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2004.
After perusal of the impugned judgment it reveals 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 leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 VG..