Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3991 of 2012
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Jitendra Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Shri Rajesh Mishra learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2012 by means of which accused respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 498A, 304B, 302/34 IPC and Section ¾ DP Act.
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 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 heard learned AGA at great length. We have also perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. Perusal of record shows that the court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded a number of categorical findings, relevant of which are being extracted herein as under:-
ih0MCyw0 6 foospd y{eh fuokl feJk is'k gq;s gSa] ftUgksus cryk;k gS fd mlus ?kVuk LFky dk Lo;a fujh{k.k djds uD'kk utjh rS;kj fd;k FkkA bl ij izn'kZ d&7 Mkyk x;k vkSj xokgku ds c;ku Hkh ntZ fd;s FksA xokg us crk;k gS fd {ks=kf/kdkjh vdcjiqj }kjk fcljk dks tkap gsrq fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk Hkstk x;k FkkA fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ U;k;ky; esa nh x;h FkhA tks i=koyh ij ekStwn gSA ftl ij izn'kZ d&10 Mkyk x;kA bl xokg us vfHk;qDr ftrsUnz flag] yk[ku flag] foosd flag ds fo:) vkjksi i= la0 6,@08 U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky fd;k FkkA foospd us vius c;ku esa ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd eqdnesa ds lEiw.kZ ipsZ mlds gLrys[k esa ugha gS vkSj uD'kk utjh Hkh mlds ys[k esa ugha gSA ek= mlds gLrk{kj gSA foospd ds }kjk foospuk ds lkjs ipsZ Lo;a rS;kj ugha fd;s x;s gSaA bl izdkj ls foospd y{eh fuokl feJk ds }kjk vius drZO;ksa ds izfr ykijokgh fcjrus ds fy;s mlds fo:) vuq'kklukRed dk;Zokgh djus gsrq Mh0vkbZ0th0 dkuiqj dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA S ih0MCYkw0 8 Mk0 foosd xqIrk is'k gq;s gSaA ftUgksus iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ dks lkfcr fd;k gSA ftldk mYys[ esjs }kjk fu.kZ; esa Åij fd;k x;k gSA B. vfHk;kstu ds nwljs lk{kh ih0MCYkw0 2 egs'k flag is'k gq;s gSaA ftUgksus vius c;ku esa ;g cryk;k gS fd mldh cfgu ds ejus ds dkj.k iksLVekVZe gksus ds ckn ekyqe gqvk FkkA xokg us cryk;k fd mlus eqfYteku }kjk viuh cfgu dks tgjhyh oLrq f[kykrs gq;s ugha ns[kkA xokg us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og iapk;rukek ds le; ekStwn FkkA iapk;rukek ds le; mlus viuh cfgu fd 'kjhj ij dksbZ tkfgjk pksV ugha ns[kh FkhA ih0MCyw0 3 /kesZUnz flag ls Hkh nksckjk ftjg gqbZ gSA blus ;g cryk;k gS fd mls cfgu dh e`R;q dk dkj.k iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ vkus ds ckn irk pyk FkkA xokg us ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus eqfYteku }kjk viuh cfgu dks tgjhyh oLrq f[kykrs gq;s ugha ns[kkA ;g xokg iapk;rukek ds le; ekStwn FkkA ijUrq mlus rglhynkj] o iqfyl dks ,d yk[k :Ik;s ekaxus dh ckr ugha cryk;h FkhA iapk;rukek ds le; mlus viuh cfgu ds 'kjhj ij dksbZ tkfgjk pksV ugha ns[kh FkhA xokg us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldh cfgu 'kknh ds iwoZ vkSj 'kknh ds ckn chekj jgrh FkhA mldk bykt Hkh djok;k FkkA ijUrq dksbZ Qk;nk ugha gqvk FkkA mldh llqjky esa Hkh rfc;r [kjkc gks tkrh FkhA ijUrq bykt ls dksbZ Qk;nk ugha gqvk FkkA ih0MCyw0 5 Jherh jkeorh e`rdk dh ekrk dks Hkh iqu% ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gSA bl xokg us Hkh ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mlus eqfYteku ds }kjk e`rdk dks ekjrs ihVrs ugha ns[kk FkkA iksLVekVZe djus okys Mk0 foosd xqIrk dk c;ku igys gks x;k FkkA mls iqu% izfri`PNk ds fy;s ryc ugha fd;k x;k gSA MkDVj us viuh fjiksVZ esa fy[kk gS fd e`R;q dk dkj.k crk;k ugha tk ldrk gSA fcljk lqjf{kr fd;k x;k gSA ftjg esa bl xokg us cryk;k gS fd tc mlus e`rdk dk iksLVekVZe fd;k Fkk]rc e`rdk ds 'kjhj ij ekjihV dh dksbZ tkfgjk pksV ugh ik;h x;h FkhA fcljk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj fcljk esa vkjxsuksQklQksjl bUlSDVhlkbM fo"k ik;k x;k FkkA fcljk fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij MkDVj ds }kjk dksbZ fjiksVZ rS;kjk ugha dh x;hA MkDVj us ek= vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd ;fn dksbZ O;fDr tgjhyh oLrq ;k dhVuk'kd oLrq dks ih ys rks mldh e`R;q gks ldrh gSA vfHk;kstu ds }kjk dksbZ izR;{k lk{; bl ckr dh ugha is'k dh x;h gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk e`rdk dks dhVuk'kd nok tcjnLrh fiykbZ x;h FkhA e`rdk ds iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ls Hkh Li"V gS fd e`rdk ds 'kjhj ij ekjihV dh dksbZ tkfgjk pksV ugha ik;h x;h FkhA bl izdkj ls e`rdk ds lkFk tcjnLrh djus dk dksbZ lk{; vfHk;kstu is'k ugha dj ldk gSA vfHk;kstu ds fdlh Hkh lk{kh us vius c;ku esa ;g ugha dgk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk e`rdk dks dhVuk'kd nok tcjnLrh fiykbZ x;h FkhA vfHk;kstu ds lk{kh ih0MCYkw0 3 /kesZUnz flag us viuh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldh cfgu 'kknh ds iwoZ vkSj 'kknh ds ckn chekj jgrh FkhA mldk bykt Hkh djok;k FkkA ijUrq dksbZ Qk;nk ugha gqvk FkkA mldh llqjky esa Hkh mldh rfc;r [kjkc gks tkrh FkhA lQkbZ i{k dh vksj ls Mh0MCyw0 1 Jherh ljkstuh dk c;ku djk;k x;k gSA ftlus cryk;k gS fd og e`rdk ds ?kj vk;k tk;k djrh FkhA e`rdk vdlj chekj jgrh FkhA mldks pDdj vkrs FksA ftlls og csgks'k gks tkrh FkhA mlus mldks dbZ ckj csgks'k gksrs ns[kk FkkA e`rdk dk ?kjsyw mipkj Hkh mlds ?kj okys djkrs FksA ijUrq dksbZ Qk;nk ugha gqvk FkkA mlds ?kj okys e`rdh dk bykt >kM+Qawd ls Hkh djkrs FksA tSlk fd Åij foospuk dh x;h gS fd xhrk nsoh dh e`R;q fn0 19@20-02-2008 dks gq;h FkhA mldk iapk;rukek fn0 20-02-2008 dks ntZ fd;k x;k gSA iapku dh jk; ds eqrkfcd e`rdk dh e`R;q tgjhyk inkFkZ [kkus ls gqbZ FkhA iapk;rukek ds le; e`rdk ds ?kj okys ekStwn FksA iapk;rukek ds le; iapku dh jk; ds eqrkfcd e`rdk dh e`R;q tgjhyk inkFkZ [kkus ls gqbZ FkhA e`rdk ds ?kjokyksa us bl lEcU/k esa ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fn0 20-02-2008 dks ntZ ugha djk;h gSA e`rdk dk iksLVekVZe fn0 21-02-2008 dks gqvk gSA blds ckn Hkh e`rdk ds ?kjokyksa us e`rdk dh gR;k dh dksbZ fjiksVZ ntZ ugha djk;h FkhA ?kVuk dh ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fn0 26-02-2008 dks ntZ djk;h x;h gSA ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fcyEc ls ntZ djk;s tkus dk tks dkj.k fn;k x;k gS] og Hkh lUrks"ktud ugha gSA ih0MCyw0 1 us vius c;ku esa fcyEc dk Li"Vhdj.k nsrs gq;s ;g dgk gS fd ?kVuk ds dkj.k ?kj vLrO;Lr FkkA mls pDdj vkrs FksA tc mldh rfc;r Bhd gqbZ rc mlus fn0 26-02-2008 dks Fkkus esa ?kVuk dh rgjhj nsdj eqdnek ntZ djk;k FkkA tcfd ih0MCyw0 1 ds nks vU; HkkbZ egs'k flag o /kesZUnz flag Hkh gSA buesa ls fdlh ds }kjk Hkh ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 ntZ djk;h tk ldrh FkhA bl izdkj ls ih0MCyw0 1 }kjk tks fcyECk dk Li"Vhdj.k fn;k x;k gS] og lUrks"ktud ugha gSA vr% ;g U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqprk gS fd ?kVuk dh ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 lksap le>dj fcyECk ls nh x;h gSA bl izdkj ls ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 vius vki lafnX/k gks tkrh gSA 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.
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, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.
Let lower court record be sent back to the court concerned.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018/SP