Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3751 of 2012 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar Sharma & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Patanjali Misra, 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 20.06.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut in S.T. No. 913/2006 whereby accused-respondent, namely, Jitendra Kumar Sharma and Chandra Bhushan have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 307/34, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Brahampuri, District Meerut.
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 20.06.2012 and the findings as recorded therein.
Perusal of the judgment shows that the court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded a number of findings and the relevant portion of which are being extracted herein below:
“vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd pqVSy dks bykt ds fy;s jhrk eYVh Lis'kfyVh vLirky esa ys tk;k x;k gS tcfd pqVSy dks ljdkjh vLirky esa ys tku pkfg;s FkkA loZizFke pqVSy ds ifjokj okys pqVSy dks bykt ds fy;s ogh ys tku ilUn djrs tgka ij MkDVj muds ifjfpr gks vkSj vPNk mipkj feysA lk{kh ih0MCyw&2 nsosUnz dqekj us izfrijh{kk ds ist&7 ij Li"V:Ik ls ;g dFku fd;k gS fd njksxk th us c;ku fn;k gS fd Vªksek lsUVj esjs llqj ';keyky ds ifjfprksa dk gS vkSj MkDVjksa ls vPNs lEcU/k gSA blfy;s pksVks dh izd`fr ,slh gS dksbZ Hkh O;fDr ilyh ds uhps o isV ij rst /kkjnkj gfFk;kj dh bUlkbZM oqUM ls dh pksV ugh cuok ldrk ijUrq ;gka ;g egRo j[krk gS A ;fn vfHk;kstu i{k ,oa pqVSy ds }kjk fn;s x;s lk{; esa vfHk;qDr ftrsUnz dh pksVs Li"Vhd`r ugha dh gS tks vko';d gS rks fuf'pr :i ls ogkW ekeyk ;qfDr;qDr :i ls lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugha ekuk tk ldrk A D;ksafd ;g oknh o pqVSy dk nkf;Ro Fkk fd og izkFkfedh vkSj vUos"kd dks fn;s c;ku esa vkSj U;k;ky; dks fn;s c;ku esa bl ckr dk mYys[k ugh gS fd ftrsUnz dks tks pksVs vk;h gS og D;ksa o fdl izdkj vk;h gS D;ksafd vfHk;qDr dh bl izdkj dh pksVs gS tks cuok;h tk ldrh vkSj tgkA vfHk;kstui{k vfHk;qDr dh pksVks dks Li"V u djs rks ogka ekeyk ;qfDr;qDr :i ls lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugh ekuk tk ldrk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd Økl&dsl cuokus ds mn~ns'; ls ;g izkFkfedh foyEc ls ntZ djk;h gS] cy ugh j[krk gS D;ksafd fpfdRld ds }kjk Fkkuk/;{k dadj[ksM+k dks nsosUnz dh pksVks ds laca/k esa 10-15 ih-,e- ij rRdky lwpuk nh x;h gS ftles Li"V :i ls mfYyf[kr gS fd nsosUnz xxZ iq= jktsUnz xxZ mez djhc 22 o"kZ fuoklh 681@17 czg~eiqjh Fkkuk czg~eiqjh esjB vkilh >xM+s esa ?kk;y gksus ds dkj.k ';keyky flagy iq= Lo- Jh y{eh ukjk;.k fuoklh f'ko 'kfDr uxj Fkkuk czg~eiqjh esjB }kjk HkrhZ djk;k x;k gS jksxh dh gkyr fpUrktud gSA izkFkfedh dh Hkh gks ldrh gS vkSj dkxt la- 10v@1 bl ckr dk |ksrd gS fd jhrk gkfLiVy ds }kjk Fkkuk dadj[ksM+k dks lwpuk nh x;h gS rFkk fn- 4- 11-04 dks 9-35 cts dkxt la- 5v@3 fn-3-11-04 dks le; 10-15 ih-,e- ij et:c dks vLirky es nkf[ky fd;k x;k vkSj Fkkuk czg~eiqjh dks bl ckr dh lwpuk nh x;h th-Mh- dkxt la- 5v@2 i=koyh ij ;g lkfcr djrh gS fd Fkkuk czg~eiqjh dks lwpuk nsosUnz ds pksfVy gksus ds laca/k esa nh x;h blfy;s izn'kZ d&2 ;fn foyEc ls fn- 5-11-2004 dks fy[kok;h x;h gS rks Hkh foyEc Li"Vhd`r gSA D;ksafd mlesa fy[kk gS fd mipkj esa yxk jgk rFkk vkijs'ku gqvk gkyr fpUrktud gksus ds dkj.k og vkt rd mldh ns[kHkky esa yxk jgk tc fjiksVZ djkus vk;k gSA ijUrq blds ckotwn Hkh ;fn vfHk;kstui{k LoPN o fueZy gkFkksa ls vkdj U;k;ky; esa lk{; ugh nsrk gSA pksfVy ftrsUnz dh pksVs lkfcr ugh djrk gS rks ekeyk vfHk;kstu ;qfDr;qDr :i ls lUnsg mRiUu djrk gSA /kkjk 504 Hkk0na0la0 yksd 'kkfUr Hkax ;k vU; vijk/k dkfjr izdksiu ls djsxk ij curk gS ijUrq vfHk;kstulkf{k;ksa us >xM+k ?kj ds vUnj dk crk;k gSA vr% yksd'kkfUr Hkax ugh gks ldrh gSA vr% /kkjk 504 Hkk0na0la0ds vkjksi gsrw lk{; ugh gSA /kkjk 506 Hkk0na0la0 ds vkjksi gsrw Hkh lk{; izkFkfedh ih-MCyw&1 o ih-MCyw&2 Hkh ugh gSA vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls Økl&dsl dk uD'kk utjh dkxt la- 217[k@2 nkf[ky fd;k x;k gS ftlesa , LFkku ij >xM+k ekjihV izn'kZd&1 esa of.kZr LFkku ij u crkdj oknh eqdnek ';ke yky flagy ds vkfQl dk crk;k gS ijUrq og ;qfDr;qDr :i ls vUos"kd ds }kjk uD'kk utjh ugha cuk;k x;k gSA ?kVukLFky ls dksbZ Hkh [kwuvkywnk o lknk feV~Vh ugh yh x;h gS rFkk [kwu ls lus diM+s Hkh vUos"kd }kjk ugh fy;s x;s gSA mDr foospuk ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh; lk{; dh leh{kk ds mijkUr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gwW fd vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDrx.k ftusUnz dqekj 'kekZ ,oa pUnzHkw"k.k ds fo:) /kkjk 323 lifBr /kkjk 34] /kkjk 324 lifBr /kkjk 34]307 lifBr /kkjk 34] /kkjk 504 o 506 Hkk0na0la0 ds rgr yxk;s x;s vkjksi dks lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA blfy;s vfHk;qDrx.k ftrsUnz dqekj 'kekZ ,oa pUnzHkw"k.k /kkjk 323 lifBr /kkjk 34] /kkjk 324 lifBr /kkjk 34]307 lifBr /kkjk 34] /kkjk 504 o 506 Hkk0na0la0 ds rgr yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds rgr lUnsg dk ykHk ikdj nks"keqDr gksus ds vf/kdkjh 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 14 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2004.
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