Court No. - 17
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8029 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Layak Ram & Another Counsel for Appellant :- GA
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
The present appeal has been filed along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgement and order dated 11.08.2009 passed in Session Trial No. 450 of 2001 (State of U.P. Vs. Layak Ram and others), under Sections 328, 393 I.P.C.
The submission of learned A.G.A. is that respondents were involved in the present matter, they administered intoxicating sweet to the victim Ganeshi Lal Verma while he was travelling in the bus along with the respondents. He becomes unconscious. It was also argued that there was sufficient evidence on record to establish the offence under Sections 328 and 393 I.P.C. but the trial court ignoring the statement of the victim as well as doctor concerned who examined the victim at first instance and found that victim was unconscious due to consuming of intoxicated sweet acquitted the respondent. Minor contradiction occurred in the statement of prosecution witnesses were not fatal to the prosecution case. Tablets recovered from the possession of the accused respondents were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in right perspective and has reached on wrong conclusion acquitting the respondents-accused.
I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
The respondents were acquitted by the trial court vide impugned judgement and order observing that ingredients of offence under Section 328 I.P.C. are not proved. Intoxicating material said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused appellants was not sent to the science laboratory and there is no report to establish that the recovered material was intoxicated material.
Learned trial court has also observed that if accused respondents had intention to commit the present offence why robbery was not committed during the period when they were travelling along with victim. It is also observed that victim PW-1 Ganeshi Lal Verma himself has made contradictory statement whether at the first instance tea was administered to him or sweet.
From a perusal of the impugned judgement and order it is clear that victim has admitted at one point of time that he had consumed the liquor. If the entire evidence discussed in the impugned judgement and order are minutely scrutinized, findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order cannot be said to be perverse or illegal.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 315 has held as under.
"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."
In the case of Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 298, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under.
"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
The application moved by the appellant State of U.P. to grant leave to appeal for the reason discussed herein above is not liable to be allowed. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is refused.
Since the application for grant to leave has been refused, the appeal is also not liable to be admitted and is dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Sanjeet