Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3988 of 2012 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Inam Singh Yadav And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the application seeking leave to appeal and perused the record.
The present government appeal has been filed along with an application for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.7.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 8, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 788/2007 whereby accused-respondents, namely, Inam Singh Yadav, Gopichandra and Constable Anil Swaroop have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 302/34, 218, 193 IPC P.S. Devband, District Saharanpur.
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 has 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 perused the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 and the findings as recorded therein.
With regard to the testimony of PW-1 to PW-7, the court concerned has recorded the following findings:
“bruk gh ugha vfHk;kstu i{k dh rjQ ls bu xokgkas dh eq{;
ijh{kk eas Hkh ;g ckr ugha vk;h fd gkftj vnkyr vfHk;qDrx.k vFkok U;k;ky; ls vuqifLFkr bl eqdnes ds vfHk;qDrx.k us gh ? kVuk okys fnu] le; o LFkku ij e`rd ekS0 ;wuql ij fcuk fdlh dkj.k xksyh pyk nhA** So far as PW-2 Hasib Siddiqui is concerned, the court concerned has clearly observed herein as under:
**tgka rd bl lk{kh dh izfrijh{kk dk iz'u gS rks izfrijh{kk eas Hkh ;gh ckr vk;h gS fd ;g lk{kh ?kVuk ds le; ?kVuk LFky ij ugha FkkA Li"V gS fd bl lk{kh us Lo;a dksbZ ?kVuk ugha ns[khA** While returning the verdict of acquittal, the court concerned has recorded the following conclusion:
**mijksDr ds vfrfjDr izLrqr ekeys eas foops uk ds nkSjku foospd }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k ls ?kVuk eas iz;qDr cUnwdkas vFkok jk;Qykas dks dCts eas ydjs ,ls k Hkh dkbZs lk{; ,df=r ugha fd;k ftlls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk lds fd e`rd eks0 ;quql dk iksLVekVZe fd;s tkrs le; tks xksyh ih0MCYkw&8 Mk0 jfoUnz dqekj fla?ky }kjk e`rd ds 'ko ls cjken djds lhy cUn fyQkQs eas ,l0,l0ih0 lgkjuiqj dks Hksth x;h ogh xksyh okLro eas vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk ?kVuk ds le; yh x;h jk;Qy ls pykbZ gksA bruk gh ugha vfHk;kstu i{k ds lk{khx.k ds c;kuksa eas ;g ckr vk;h gS fd ifq yl dfeZ;ksa }kjk Nr ls xksyh pykbZ Fkh ysfdu ih0MCYkw&8 Mk0 jfoUnz dqekj ds lk{; ds vuqlkj e`rd ds lhus eas lkeus ls xkyhs yxh gSA tcfd Åij ls pykbZ x;h xksyh dh fn'kk 'kjhj eas Åij ls uhps dh rjQ gkrs h gSA vr% bu lc ifjfLFkfr;kas eas vfHk;kstu i{k dk ;g dFkkud lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gksrk gS fd gkftj vnkyr vfHk;qDrx.k us gh e`rd eks0;quql ij xksyh pykbZ ftlls mldh e`R;q gks x;hA bl izdkj i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; o mi;qZDr foospuk ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) yxk;k x;k vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 304 lifBr /kkjk 34 Hkk0na0la0 lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gksrk gSA mijksDr ds vfrfjDr tgka rd vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 218 o 193 Hkk0na0la0 dk iz'u gS rks bu vkjksiksa dh ckcr vfHk;kstu i{k dh rjQ ls ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k ftlls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk lds fd vfHk;qDrx.k us ?kVuk ls Lo;a dks cpkus ds fy, QthZ rjhds ls lk{; ,df+=r dj vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 62@93 ls rgr Hkk0na0la0 dh /kkjk 147]148]149]307]427 o /kkjk 7 fØfeuy ykW ,esUMesUV ,DV ds rgr eqdnek iathd`r fd;kA ftl dkj.k vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) yxk;s x;s ;g vkjksi Hkh lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gksrs gSaA bl izdkj mi;qZDr leLr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij esjh jk; eas vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gksrs gS vkSj vfHk;qDrx.k yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa eas nk"s keqDr gkus s ;kX;s gSaA ”
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) 11 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 23 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 1995.
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 leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 24.08.2018 Anand