Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2442 of 2015
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Kumar And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. 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 27.2.2015 by means of which accused respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC.
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 the impugned judgment 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:-
izys[kh; o ekSf[kd fpfdRlh; lk{; ds vuqlkj e`R;q fn0 28-11-96 dks lqcg 6&7 cts ls mlh fnu jkf= 10-00 cts ds chp gksuk lEHkkfor gSA vfHk;kstu dFkkud ds vuqlkj e`rd dsnkj fnukad 27-11-96 dh lka; dks 'kkSp gksus ds fy, dgdj x;k FkkA vfHk;kstu dFkkud ds vuqlkj f>udw ;kno vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0 2 us jkf= 9-00 cts ds yxHkx vfHk;qDr dqekj ds ?kj ds ikl ls 'kksj lquk Fkk vkSj fnukad 27-11-96 dh jkf= esa fdlh le; e`rd dh gR;k dh x;h gS] tcfd izys[kh; o ekSf[kd fpfdRlh; lk{; ds vuqlkj e`rd dh gR;k fnukad 28-11-96 ls lqcg 6&7 cts ls ysdj mlh fnu jkf= 10-00 cts ds chp gksuk lEHkkfor gS vkSj bl izdkj izys[kh; o ekSf[kd lk{; e`rd ds e`R;q ds le; dks ysdj vfHk;kstu dFkkud dh iqf"V ugh djrk gSA e`rd dks vfUre ckj fnukad 27-11-96 dks lka; 07-30 cts ns[kk x;k Fkk vkSj mlds ckn e`rd dh yk'k fnukad 29-11-96 dh izkr% 10-00 cts ds yxHkx feyhA e`rd dks vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk fnukad 27-11-96 ;k mlls iwoZ dHkh ns[kk x;k gks] ,slk dksbZ lk{;
vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls U;k;ky; ls le{k ugha j[kk x;k gSA lEiw.kZ vfHk;kstu lk{; esa ,slk dksbZ rF; ugha vk;k gS fd e`rd dsnkj dh yk'k ds cjkenxh LFky ij ;k mlds vkl&ikl vfHk;qDrx.k dks e`rd ds lkFk ;k ek= vfHk;qDrx.k dks gh] e`rd dks vfUre ckj ns[ks tkus ds le; ls e`rd dh yk'k dh cjkenxh ds le; ds chp fdlh O;fDr }kjk ns[kk x;k gSA lEiw.kZ vfHk;kstu lk{; esa ,slk dksbZ rF; ugha vk;k gS fd fdlh lk{kh us fnukad 27-11-96 dks 'kke 07-30 cts tc e`rd dsnkj 'kkSp gsrq tkus dh dgdj x;k] mlds igys ;k ml jkf= dks vfHk;qDrx.k dh fdlh xfrfof/k dks ns[kk gksA e`rd dh yk'k ftl ?kVukLFky ls cjken gqbZ gS] ml ?kVukLFky ls vfHk;qDrx.k ds ?kj ls yxHkx 1 QykZax dh nwjh ij gS vkSj vfHk;kstu lk{; ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDr dqekj ds ?kj ds vkl&ikl cgqr lkjs edkukr gSA vfHk;kstu lk{;kuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k fnukad 29-11-96 dh izkr% rd vius ?kj ls Hkkxs ugha FksA ;|fi bl izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls ?kVuk dk izcy gsrqd U;k;ky; ds le{k j[kus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; us viuh fof/k O;oLFkk ds'ko izfr egkjk"Vª jkT; 2009 ¼1½ ,l0lh0lh0 fØfeuy ist 184 esa ;g Li"V er O;Dr fd;k gS fd ek= ?kVuk dk gsrqd lkfcr gksus ls vfHk;qDrx.k dks nks"kfl) ugha fd;k tk ldrkA vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls ?kVuk dk tks gsrqd vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0 2 f>udw ;kno ds }kjk U;k;ky; ds le{k j[kk x;k gS] bl fu.kZ; ds izLrj la0 21 esa fd;s x;s lk{; ds fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; esa vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0 2 f>udw ;kno ds vkpj.k dks lUnsgkLin ik;k gS D;ksafd mlds }kjk e`rd dsnkj dks vfHk;qDr dqekj ds ?kj dh rjQ tkus ls jksdus dk dksbZ izHkkoh iz;kl ugha fd;k x;k FkkA ?kVuk ds dfFkr gsrqd dh iqf"V e`rd dsnkj ds HkkbZ oknh eqdnek us ugh dh gSA bl izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k ds lk{; ls vfHk;kstu ?kVuk dk gsrqd fo'oluh; :i ls lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0 2 f>udw ;kno us e`rd dsnkj dks fnukad 27-11-96 dks gjs jax ds xeNs ds lkFk gksuk crk;k gS tcfd e`rd dsnkj ds dfFkr cjken xeNs dk jax dkyk gS vkSj U;k;ky; us bl fu.kZ; ds izLrj la0 22 esa fd;s x;s lk{; ds fo'ys"k.k esa mDr xeNs dh cjkenxh dks fo'oluh; ugha ik;k gSA vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; dh lcls egRoiw.kZ dM+h ds :i esa vfHk;qDr dqekj }kjk cjken djk;s x;s vfHk;qDr jk/ks';ke ds diM+ks dk rF; j[kk x;k gSA bl fu.kZ; ds izLrj la0 25 o 26 esa fd;s x;s fo'ys"k.k ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd QnZ cjkenxh izn'kZ d&4 esa mfYyf[kr diM+ks dk fooj.k fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ dkxt la0 7d@2 o 7d@3 esa mfYyf[kr fooj.k ds lkFk&lkFk bl eqdnesa ds foospd jke d`iky feJ ih0MCyw0&7 ds l'kiFk lk{; esa fn;s x;s fooj.k ls esy ugh [kkrk gS rFkk U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;s x;s diM+ks dk feyku QnZ cjkenxh izn'kZ d&4 esa mfYyf[kr diM+ks ls u gksus ds dkj.k mDr QnZ cjkenxh dh dk;Zokgh U;k;ky; esa fo'oluh; ugha ik;h gSA bl eqdnesa ds foospd jke d`iky feJ ih0MCyw0&7 us oknh eqdnek dh mifLFkfr esa vfHk;qDr dqekj dks fxjQ~rkj djuk] leLr dk;Zokgh esa oknh eqdnek dk lkFk jgk crkrk gS ijUrq oknh eqdnek us bl ckr dh tkudkjh gksus ls badkj fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDr dqekj dc idM+k x;k] dgkW idM+k x;k rFkk fdlds }kjk idM+k x;kA oknh eqdnek }kjk fd;k x;k mijksDr dFku u dsoy vfHk;qDr dqekj dh fxjQ~rkjh dks lUnsgkLin cukrk gS cfYd vfHk;qDr dqekj ds }kjk djok;h x;h vfHk;qDr jk/ks ';ke ds diM+ks dh cjkenxh dks Hkh lUnsgkLin cukrk gSA lUnsg fdruk Hkh etcwr D;ksa u gks] lcwr dh txg ugh ys ldrk gSA izys[kh; o ekSf[kd fpfdRlh; lk{; e`rd dsnkj ds gR;k ds le; dks ysdj vfHk;kstu dFkkud dh iqf"V ugha djrk gSA bl izdkj ;g U;k;ky; i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr ekSf[kd ,oa izys[kh; lk{; ds fo'ys"k.k djus ds mijkar bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqprk gS fd vfHk;kstu ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; dh tathj dh lwEiw.kZrk dks lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk gSA U;k;ky; ds le{k j[kh x;h leLr ifjfLFkfr;kW vfHk;qDrx.k dh nks"kflf) dh vksj lh/k&lh/kk ladsr ugha djrh gSA tgkW ekeyk Li"V :i ls ifjfLFktU; lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gksrk gS ogkW vijk/k vuqeku dsoy rHkh U;ks;ksfpr gks ldrk gS] tc vijk/k esa Qalk;s tkus okys lHkh rF; vkSj ifjfLFkfr;kW vfHk;qDr dh funksZf"krk dks vekU; djsa vkSj vfHk;qDr ds nks"k dks ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djsaA vfHk;kstu dFkkud esa dbZ lUnsgkLin ifjfLFkfr;kW gS] ftuls vfHk;qDrx.k ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh O;fDr ds }kjk ?kVuk dks dkfjr fd;s tkus dh lEHkkouk;sa Hkh izrhr gksrh gaSA vfHk;kstu ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; dh lcls egRoiw.kZ dM+h ;kfu fd vfHk;qDr dqekj }kjk vfHk;qDr jk/ks';ke ds cjken djk;s x;s dfFkr diM+ksa dks fo'oluh; lk{; ls lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS vksj bl izdkj vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s leLr rF; vkSj ifjfLFkr;kW lap;h :i ls ,d ,slh iw.kZ Ja`[kyk ds :i esa lkfcr ugha gks ik jgh gaS ftlls lHkh ekuoh; lEHkkoukvksa dks ns[krs gq, e`rd dqekj dh gR;k fd;s tkus dk vijk/k vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk gh fd;s tkus vkSj ;g vijk/k fdlh vU; O;fDr }kjk ugha fd;s tkus dk fu"d"kZ fudyrk gksA vr% vfHk;kstu] vfHk;qDrx.k dqekj] jk/ks';ke o eqfu;k mQZ eqUuh nsoh ds fo:) vkjksfir vkjksiksa dks ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS vkSj ifj.kker% vfHk;qDrx.k lUnsg dk ykHk ikrs gq, vkjksfir vkjksiksa ls nks"keqDr gksus ;ksX; gaSA After perusal of the impugned judgment it 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.
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.
At this stage, 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.
Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected.
Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.
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 :- 26.10.2018 SP