State Of U P vs Kallu And Others

Court No. - 51

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 662 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P.

Respondent :- Kallu And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.04.2018 by means of which the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offences under sections 323, 325, 307, 504, 506 IPC passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 16, Muzaffar Nagar, in Session Trial No. 744 of 2009.

We have perused the judgment and order dated 06.04.2018 which shows that the trial Court has recorded categorical findings after considering the entire evidence on record.

Perusal of the record shows that as far as the first informant Smt. Zarina is concerned who has lodged the FIR with regard to when incident of 19.10.2008 took place and she was present in the examination-in- chief. Subsequently she expired and thus she could not face the cross examination.

As far as the question of delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the relevant finding of the court concerned is extracted here in below:-

vfHk;kstu ds }kjk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fcuk fdlh foyEc ds ntZ djk;h x;h gS ftl dkj.k vfHk;qDrx.k dh >wBh uketnxh dk dksbZ iz'u mRiUu ugha gksrk gS rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k iwoZ ls gh oknh eqdnek o vU; xokgku ds ifjfpr gSA blds foijhr vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ lykg e'kojk ds vk/kkj ij ntZ djk;h x;h gS rFkk tks foyEc ls rFkk fcuk Li"Vhdj.k ds ntZ djk;h x;h gS bl dkj.k izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ij fo'okl izdV ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA The court has further observed in paragraph no. 48 that mDr lEcU/k esa vfHk;kstu }kjk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd fdl izdkj ih0 MCyw0&2 o ih0 MCyw0&3 ds c;kuksa o izn'kZ&d&10 o izn'kZ&d&11 esa Fkkus ij ?

kVuk ds le; ds lEcU/k es feyh lwpuk ds lEcU/k esa fHkUu fHkUUk rF; vafdr gS ftl dkj.k izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks vfHk;kstuk ;qfDr lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA With regard to testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 the court has rightly observed which is quoted herein below:-

;gka ij Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd ih0 MCyw0&2 ds }kjk viuh izfrijh{kk ds i`"B&8 esa l'kiFk dFku fd;k gS fd eSa ?kVuk okys fnu etnwjh djus xzke foKkuk x;k Fkk blls igys esa dHkh xzke foKkuk ugha x;k Fkk tjhuk ds HkkbZ tCckj dks Hkh tkurk gwW eSa tjhuk ds nsoj dYyw] jCcku] gkde o ukflj eqyfteku dks >xMs+ ls igys ugha tkurk FkkA eq>s buds uke tjhuk us crk;s Fks tjhuk ds crkus ij gh buds uke rgjhj esa fy[kk;s FksA ;gka ij Hkh mYys[uh; gS fd ih0 MCyw0&3 ds }kjk viuh izfrijh{kk ds i`"B&7 izLrj&28 es l'kiFk dFku fd;k gS fd ?kVuk ds fnu ls vkt rd eSa dHkh tjhuk ls ugha feykA eqyfteku ds uke tks eSaus vkt crk;s gS og eSaus ml fnu tjhuk }kjk crkus ij vkt crk;s gS eSa O;fDrxr :i ls eqyfteku dks ugh tkurk gks ldrk gS fd tjhuk us eq>s eqyfteku ds uke xyr crk;s gksA mijksDr nksuksa vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ks ds }kjk viuh izfrijh{kk esa dFku fd;k gS fd o vfHk;qDrx.k dks O;fDrxr :i ls ugh tkurs Fks rFkk dfFkr :i ls oknuh eqdnek tjhuk ds crk;s vuqlkj mUgksus eqyfteku ds uke vius lkFk ekjihV djus okys O;fDr;ksa ds :i esa crk;s gS tcfd muds }kjk viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa dFku fd;k x;k gS fd og eqyfteku dk tkurs igpkurs gSA ftlls fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd dfFkr :i ls vfHk;qDrx.k dh igpku Li"V :i ls ugh gks ik;h gS ;gka ij ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd nkSjku foospuk fdlh Hkh vfHk;qDr dh f'kuk[r ijsM vfHk;kstu lk{kh ih0 Mcyw-&2 o ih0 MCyw0&3 ls ugha djk;h x;h gSA With regard to site plan also and the conduct of the Investigating Officer in the present case, it is apparent that the court has very seriously castigated the investigating officer with regard to the casual manner in which the investigation has been done. The relevant extract is quoted herein below:-

foospd us tks dfFkr uD'kk utjh ?kVuk LFky dk fufeZr fd;k gS mlds lEcU/k esa mlds }kjk dksbZ tkudkjh gkfly ugh dh x;h gS rFkk dfFkr ?kVuk LFky ds pkjksa vksj fdl fdl dh Hkwfe ;k [ksr gS foospd us muds lEcU/k esa uD'kk utjh esa dksbZ bUnzkt ugha fd;k gS rFkk vius c;kuksa esa Hkh mlds }kjk ;gh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mDr ds lEcU/k esa uk rks mldks dksbZ tkudkjh gS rFkk uk gh mlus mDr tkudkjh izkIr djus dh t:jr le>hA vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;kstu us fdlh Hkh LorU= lk{kh dks ijhf{kr ugha djk;k gS rFkk tks gh lk{kh ijhf{kr djk;s gS og fgrc) lk{kh gS tcfd rgjhj izn'kZ&d&1 easa LorU= lk{kh of.kZr fd;s x;s gSA bl lEcU/k es esjs }kjk rgjhj izn'kZ&d&1 dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftles vafdr gS fd ?kVuk dk 'kksj lqudj fulkj iq= vyheq}hu] egcwc iq= uthj] lbZn iq= tokj] fuoklhx.k cl/kkMk tks fd Jherh tjhuk ds lkFk gh x;s Fks rFkk pkWn [kku ds ;gkW :ds Fks] bu yksxksa us vkdj gekjh tku cpkbZ vkSj eqyfteku xkyh xyksp o tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj Hkkx x;sA mijksDr fn;s x;s fo'ys"k.k ls Li"V gks pqdk gS fd ih0 MCyw0&2 ;kdwc bykgh] oknuh eqdnek Jherh tjhuk ds le/kh dk lxk HkkbZ rFkk ukseku] ;kdwc bykgh ds xkao dk fuoklh gSA rgjhj izn'kZ& d&1 esa vafdr xokg Hkh xkao cl/kkMk+ ds gh nf'kZr fd;s x;s gS tcfd dfFkr ?kVuk xzke foKkuk esa ?kfVr gksuk crk;h x;h gSa ih0 MCyw0&3 ds vuqlkj xzke foKkuk] xzke cl/kkMk+ ls yxHkx 15&20 fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij gSA ;g rF; vfuf/klEHkkO; izrhr gksrk gS fd ftu O;fDr;ksa dks Jherh tjhuk vius xkao ls dfFkr :i ls ysdj vk;h Fkh rFkk tks rgjhj ds vuqlkj LorU= p{kqn'khZ lk{kh gS og dfFkr dh fnukad o le; ij ?kVuk LFky ij Qly uk dkV jgs gks rFkk muds lkFk dfFkr :i ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk dksbZ ekjihV u dh x;h gksA mijksDr dfFkr p{kqn'khZ lk{kh;ksa dks vfHk;kstu us crkSj lk{kh ijhf{kr ugha djk;k gSA ih0 MCyw0&5 ds c;kuksa ds voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd mlus dfFkr p{kqn'khZ lk{kh;ksa dk dksbZ c;ku vUrZxr /kkjk 161 n0 iz0 l0a ys[kc) ugh fd;k gS rFkk mlds }kjk viuh izfrijh{kk ds izLrj&14 es dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ?kVuk LFky ds vkl ikl ds [ksr okyksa ds c;ku mlus ysus dh vko';drk ugha le>h FkhA ftlls fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd dfFkr ?kVuk dks uk ns[kk gksA ftlls fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd dfFkr p{kqn'khZ lk{kh;ksa ds lEcU/k esa foospd ds }kjk dksbZ tkudkjh izkIr ugha dh x;h rFkk uk gh muds c;ku ys[kc) djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k rFkk uk gh muls dksbZ iwNrkN dh x;hA blds vfrfjDr foospd us xzke foKkuk ds mu O;fDr;ksa ls dksbZ tkudkjh izkIr djus dh ps"Bk ugh dh ftuds [ksr dfFkr ?kVuk LFky ds vkl ikl gS rFkk bl lEcU/k esa foospd ds }kjk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mldks dfFkr ?kVuk LFky ds vkl ikl ds [ksr Lokfe;ksa ds uke ugh irk gS rFkk mlus ;g tkudkjh izkIr djus dh Hkh t:jr ugha le>hA ftlls Hkh vfHk;kstu dFkkud lafnX/k izrhr gksrk gSA The court has further observed that foospd dks dfFkr ?kVuk LFky ls ? kVuk esa iz;qDr dksbZ [kks[kk dkjrwl] NjkZ] fVdyh vkfn cjken ugha gqbZ rFkk uk gh dfFkr :i es vfHk;qDr dYyw] jCcku o gkde ls dfFkr :i ls ?kVuk es iz;qDr ykBh] M.Ms cjken gq;sA With regard to the testimony of injured PW2 the court has reported in paragraph no. 63, the contetns of which has explicit, however the findings of paragraph no. 63 have been quoted herein below:-

ih0 MCyw0&2 tks dfFkr ?kVuk es pqVSy gS] ds }kjk mijksDr rF; dh iqf "V viuh eq[; ijh{kk es dh x;h gS mDr lk{kh ds }kjk viuh izfrijh{kk ds i`"B&5 ij l'kiFk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ukflj ds gkFk es dV~Vk Fkk] ckdh rhu yksxks ds gkFk esa ykBh] M.Ms FksA eq>s ugh irk fdlus] fdrus M.Ms ekjs Fks] eq>s Hkh nks& rhu gYds&gYds M.Ms yxs FksA >xMk+ mMn dkVus ds Åij gqvk FkkA eq>s ;kn ugha Jherh tjhuk ds fdrus ykBh yxh] ysfdu mlds flj ls [kwu fudy jgk FkkA tjhuk ds diMksa ij cgqr [kwu yx jgk FkkA esjs dksbZ [kqyh pksV ugha Fkh] eSa ,d nks ckj ekjihV ds nkSjku tehu ij fxjk FkkA eq>s tehu ij fxjus ls dksbZ pksV ugha vk;h FkhA tCckj ds iSjksa esa pksV yxh FkhA tCckj ds dkQh pksVs FkhA og yxM+kdj py jgk Fkk] eq>s [kqyh pksVksa dh ;kn ugha gS rFkk i`"B&9 ij dFku fd;k gS fd ukflj us ,d gh Qk;j fd;k Fkk tks fdlh dks ugha yxk Fkk] ukflj us Qk;j 7&8 ehVj dh nwjh ls fd;k Fkk] ukflj us Qk;j ekjihV djus ls igys fd;k Fkk] ukflj ds Qk;j djus ds ckn ge ogh [ksr ij [kMs+ jgsA geus Hkkxus dk iz;kl ugh fd;k D;ksafd gekjk xkao ogkW ls dkQh nwj Fkk rFkk ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd [kwu dsoy Jherh tjhuk ds cg jgk Fkk] [kwu tehu ij ugha fxjkA The court has further observed in paragraph no. 65, that PW5 in his statement has observed and stated that bl lEcU/k esa eSaus ih0 MCyw0&5 foospd ds c;kuksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr lk{kh ds }kjk viuh izfr ijh{kk ds izLrj&12 es dFku fd;k gS fd ?kk;yks us eq>s vius jDr jaftr diMs uk rks fn[kk;s Fks uk gh fn;s FksA In view of the facts and circumstances, the court has discussed the entire evidence on record and has thereafter recorded the final conclusion in paragraph no. 67 which is quoted herein below:-

vfHk;kstu ds }kjk dfFkr :i ls ukflj }kjk ftl reUps ls Qk;j fd;k Fkk] mDr reUps dks uk rks U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k gS rFkk uk gh nkSjku foospuk mDr dfFkr reUps dks foospd }kjk cjken fd;k x;k gS rFkk uk gh dfFkr ?kVuk LFky ls foospd }kjk mDr dfFkr reUps ls pyh xksyh] NjsZ] fVdyh vkfn dks cjken fd;k x;k gSA nkSjku foospuk] foospd us uk rks pqVSyksa ls muds [kwu vkywnk diM+s vius v/;klu esa fy;s uk gh pqVSyksa ds }kjk [kwu vkywnk diM+s foospd dks fn;s x;s rFkk uk gh nkSjku foospuk] foospd us dfFkr :i ls ukflj ds vfrfjDr 'ks"k vfHk;qDrksa ls ykBh] M.Ms cjken fd;sA mDr lHkh lkexzh vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ lk{; Fkh] ftlls ;g fu"d"kZ fudy ldrk gS fd ?kVuk dh fnukad dks pqVSyks dk pksVs vk;h Fkh] ftuls [kwu fudyk FkkA ih0 MCyw0 &2 o rgjhj ds vuqlkj ukflj ds }kjk ek= ,d Qk;j fd;k x;k Fkk tcfd ih0 MCyw0&3 ds }kjk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ukflj us nks Qk;j fd;k Fkk] ih0 MCyw0&2 ds }kjk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ukflj us 7&8 ehVj dh nwjh ls Qk;j fd;k Fkk tcfd ih0 MCyw0&3 ds }kjk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd 50 ehVj dh nwjh ls Qk;j fd;k Fkk tcfd uD'kk utjh ds voyksdu ls ;g fu"d"kZ ugh fudyrk gS fd dfFkr :i ls vfHk;qDr ukflj ds }kjk 7&8 ehVj ;k 50 ehVj dh nwjh ls Qk;j fd;k x;k gksA ih0 MCyw0&2 ds vuqlkj mldksa pkj ikWp ykBh yxh Fkh tcfd ih0 MCyw0&3 ds }kjk vius c;kuksa esa dFku fd;k x;k gS fd mlus ih0 MCyw0&2 ds lkFk ekjihV gksrs gq;s ugha ns[kk rFkk ih0 MCyw0&3 ds }kjk ;g Hkh dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ih0 MCyw0&2 dfFkr :i ls ekSds ls Hkkx x;k Fkk tcfd ih0 MCyw&2 ds }kjk dFku fd;k x;k gS fd Qk;j gksus ds mijkUr og ekSds ij gh jgkA i=koyh ij miYkC/k pqVSyks ds fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k ls Hkh fofnr gksrk gS fd mudks vXus'kkL= dh dksbZ pksV ugha vk;h gS rFkk dfFkr pqVSy Jherh dks ek= ,d pksV vkuk crk;h x;h gSA tcfd ih0 MCyw0&2 rFkk ih0 MCyw0&3 ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k us pqVSy Jherh tjhuk ds lkFk 4&5 feuV rd ekjihV dh FkhA blh izdkj pqVSy ih0 MCyw0&2 ds Hkh ,d pksV vkuk crk;h x;h gS tcfd mlds dFkkuqlkj mlds lkFk 2&3 feuV rd ekjihV gqbZ Fkh rFkk mls 4&5 ykBh yxh FkhA ;gkW ij ;g Hkh mYys[kh; gS fd vfHk;kstu us pqVSy tokj dks ijhf{kr ugh djk;k gSA ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa ih0 MCyw0&2 o ih0 MCyw0&3 ds }kjk tks dFku fd;s x;s gS og fojks/kkHkklh dFku gS] ;g rF; vlEHkkO; izrhr gksrk gS fd dfFkr :i ls vfHk;qDrx.k ftudk vk'k; oknh;k eqdnek o pqVSyks dks tku ls ekjus dk Fkk] mUgksus volj o 'kL= gksus ds mijkUr Hkh muds Åij ek= vXus'kkL= ls dfFkr :i ls ,d Qk;j fd;k rFkk pqVSyks ds fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k ds vuqlkj pqVSyks dk ek= lk/kkj.k migfr dkfjr dhA ;gkW ij ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd pqVSyks ds pksVks ds lEcU/k esa MkDVj ih0 Mcyw0&4 ds }kjk viuh izfrijh{kk esa dFku fd;k x;k gS fd pqVSy ukseku dh pksV uECkj&1 fdlh l[r iRFkj ij fxjus ls Hkh vkuk lEHko gS rFkk pqVSy ukseku dh pksV la[;k&2 fdlh Bksl o dBksj pht ij fxjus ls vkuk lEHko gSA pksV la[;k&1 ftls eSaus xEHkhj izd`fr dk fy[kk gS] og thou ds fy;s gkfudkjd ugha gS rFkk pqVSy ;kdwc] tCckj o Jherh tjhuk dk lHkh pksVs lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh gS tks fd fdlh Bksl o dBksj pht ij fxjus ls ;k Vdjkus ls vkuk lEHko gSA ;gkW ij Hkh mYys[kh; gS fd ih0 MCyw0&3 ds vuqlkj mldk ,Dl&js fnukad 19-10-2008 dks ftyk vLirky] eqt¶Qjuxj esa gqvk Fkk rFkk mlh fnukad dks fulkj vLirky es mlds gkFk ij IykLVj gqvk Fkk tcfd i=koyh ij miyC/k oLrq izn'kZ&1 o MkDVj ih0 Mcyw0&4 ds c;kuksa ds vuqlkj pqVSy ukseku dk ,Dl&js ftyk vLirky esa fnukad 20-10-2008 dks agqvk gSA mijksDr lHkh rF;ksa ls vfHk;kstu lk{kh o vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr izi=ksa ls dfFkr ?kVukdze ;qfDr ;qDr lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA Regard may also be had to the consistent legal position with regard to the scope and interference by the High Court in the judgement and order of acquital. The Apex Court in the case of Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 09.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2011 has observed as under:

"The Supreme Court started by citing Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said,. "the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as:

(1) The views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses;

(2) The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial;

(3) The right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and

(4) The slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years.

11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed, ". the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons."

The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu[3], Madan Mohan Singh[4], Atley[5] , Aher Raja Khima[6], Balbir Singh[7], M.G. Agarwal[8], Noor Khan[9], Khedu Mohton[10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade[11], Lekha Yadav[12], Khem Karan[13], Bishan Singh[14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai[15], K. Gopal Reddy[16], Tota Singh[17], Ram Kumar[18], Madan Lal[19], Sambasivan[20], Bhagwan Singh[21], Harijana Thirupala[22], C. Antony[23], K. Gopalakrishna[24], Sanjay Thakran[25] and Chandrappa[26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following: (i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court, (ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.

Reference, may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of 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 , Murugesan vs. State through Inspector of Police reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5627 .

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court below is not possible and plausible thus the judgment of the court below cannot be interfered with by this Court only on account of the fact that another view is possible.

Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the court below and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by trial court is a perverse view.

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. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Swati