Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3865 of 2007
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Kiran Pal
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Adcocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Shri Arun Kumar Singh learned AGA appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.2.2017 by means of which the accused respondent Kiran Pal has been acquitted of the offences under Section 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act.
The incident is of the year 2002 (5.12.2002), however looking to the contentions as have been raised by learned AGA at the bar of this Court and the arguments at length and also having perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned, it is crystal clear that the court concerned has given cogent reasons while returning the verdict of acquittal. With regard to recovery of alleged weapon (Tamancha) the court concerned has observed herein as under:-
“Vidhi ka yah susthapit siddhant hai ki yadi awaidh aslaha ko seal karne wala kapda pulinda par mamle ka sahi vivran ankit na ho evam us par abhiyukt ke hastakshar bhi na ho tab abhiyukt se aisa awaidh aslaha ki baramadgi ka tathya sandigdh jo jayega.”
It may be appreciated that while dealing with the testimony of PW-3 Jaipal the court concerned has observed herein as under:-
blds vfrfjDr ih0MCY;w0&3 t;iky us viuh izfr ijh{kk esa i`"B la[;k&10 ij ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd blds vykok eqyfte ls vkSj dqN ugh iwNk FkkA mls oknh fot;iky o lat; us crk;k Fkk fd fdj.kiky us muds Åij Qk;j fd;k FkkA bl izdkj ls bl lk{kh ds mDr dFku ls dfFkr :i ls Qk;j dh vkokt lqudj ekSds ij igaqpus okyh ckr Hkh lafnX/k gks tkrh gS rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls lk{kh ih0MCY;w0&3 t;iky dk oknh eqdnek dk ifjokjhtu gksus ds dkj.k Hkh mldh lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k lq{erk ls fd;s tkus ij vfHk;kstu i{k ds vfHkdFku vfHk;qDr fdj.kiky ds fo:) lUnsg ls ijs fl) gksrs gq;s izrhr ugh gksrs gSA tgka rd lk{kh ih0MCY;w0&4 foospd mi&fujh{kd gjpUnz yky oekZ dh lk{; dk iz'u gSA ;g orZeku ekeysa dk vkSipkfjd lk{kh gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh ih0MCY;w0&2 lat; ds }kjk viuh lk{; esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd njksxk th us bl ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa muds dksbZ iwNrkN ugh dh FkhA bl vk/kkj ij foospd ds }kjk orZeku ekeysa dh foospuk fu"i{k ,oe~ izHkkoh <+x ls fd;k tkuk fl) ugh gksrk gSA mDr lanHkZ esa ih0MCY;w0&1 oknh eqdnek fot;iky us viuk izfr&ijh{kk ds i`"B la[;k & 13 ij Li"V :i ls ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd njksxk th iqjkus Fks blfy;s os mls igys ls gh tkurs FksA bl lk{kh ds mDr dFku ls Hkh foospd dk oknh eqdnek ls iwoZ ifjp; gksuk Hkh orZeku ekeysa dh ?kVuk dh foospuk dks fu"i{k ,oe~ izHkkoh <+x ls fd;k tkuk fl) ugh djrk gSA As far as PW-4 is concerned it appears that he has admitted that the said Tamancha said to have been recovered was never sent to Ballistic expert. Thus, the court concerned while acquitting the accused respondent has concluded herein as under:-
bl izdkj ls mijksDr lEiw.kZ ekSf[kd ,oe~ nLrkosth lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k fd;s tkus ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd dfFkr ?kVuk ls iwoZ vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dk vfHk;qDr fdj.kiky dks u tkuuk] tcfd oknh eqdnek dk xkao pqfM;kyk o ujflagiqj dh ,d gh xzke iapk;r gS rFkk oknh eqdnek o"kZ 1995 esa nksuks xkao dk xzke iz/kku pquk x;k Fkk rFkk mlds }kjk vfHk;qDr fdj.kiky ds xzke ujflagiqj esa pquko izpkj fd;k tkuk ,oe~ pquko izpkj esa fdj.kiky dk vius lkFk gksus dk rF; rFkk vius ifjokj ds djhc 100 yksxksa dh oksVks dks fdj.kiky ds }kjk fn;k tkuk Li"V gksrk gS rFkk lk{kh ih0MCY;w0&2 lat; ds }kjk Hkh vfHk;qDr fdj.kiky dks ijpwu dh nqdku ujflagiqj xkao esa ns[kk tkuk ,oe~ vfHk;qDr fdj.kiky ds }kjk ?kVuk LFky ij viuk uke o irk u crkuk ,oe~ Fkkus esa tkdj viuk uke irk crkuk Hkh vfHk;kstu i{k ds vfHkdFku esa lUnsg mRiUu dj nsrk gS rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHk;qDr fdj.kiky dk MkDVjh eqvk;uk esaa mYyf[kr pksVksa dks dksbZ lUrks"k tud Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;kstu i{k ds }kjk u fn;k Hkh esjh jk; esa vfHk;kstu i{k ds vfHkdFku esa lUnsg mRiUu dj nsrk gSA rFkk vfHk;qDr fdj.kiky ds }kjk dfFkr :i ls reUpk ls Qk;j djukA ekjihV djuk ,oe~ mlds idM+s tkus dh nwjh esa rF; dh lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; esa vk;s fojks/kkHkkl dk dkj.k Hkh vfHk;kstu i{k ds vfHkdFku esjh jk; esa lafnX/k gks tkrs gSA lk{kh ih0MCY;w0&2 lat; ds vuqlkj ?kVuk ds le; dksbZ iwNrkN u fd;k tkuk ,oe~ oknh eqdnek ls foospd dk iwoZ ifjp; gksuk orZeku ekeysa esa dh x;h foospuk fu"i{k ,oe~ izHkkoh <+x ls foospuk fd;k tkuk fl) ugh djrk gSA rFkk dfFkr :i ls cjken 'kqnk reUpk o dkjrwl dks vkXus;kL= fo'ks"kK ds ikl tkap gsrq u Hkstk tkuk Hkh esjh jk; esa vfHk;kstu i{k ds vfHkdFku dks lafnX/k crk nsrk gS rFkk diM+k iqfyUnk ij vfHk;qDr ds LFkku ij oknh eqdnek dk uke vafdr gksuk ,oe~ diM+k iqfyUnk ,oe~ QnZ cjkenxh ij vfHk;qDr dk uke o gLrk{kj vafdr u gksuk Hkh vfHk;kstu i{k ds vfHkdFku dks esjh jk; esa lUnsg mRiUu dj nsrk gS rFkk lk{kh ih0MCY;w0&3 t;iky ds oknh eqdnek ds ifjtu gksus ds dkj.k ,oe~ mlds }kjk nh x;h lk{; esa vusd egRoiw.kZ fcUnqvks ij fojks/kkHkkl gksus ds dkj.k Hkh vfHk;kstu ds vfHkdFku] vfHk;qDr ds fo:) lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugh gks ikrs gSA vfHk;qDr fdj.kiky dk dksbZ iwoZ vijkf/kd bfrgkl Hkh ugh crk;k x;k 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 :- 27.7.2018 SP