Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3809 of 2005
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Mohar Singh And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.05.2005, passed by Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No.2, Saharanpur, in Session Trial No.782 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 41 of 2002, under Section 147, 307 read with 149, 452, 504, 506, IPC, Police Station Fatehpur, District Saharanpur, by means of which the present accused-respondent namely Mohar Singh, Subhas, Satis, Suraj, Sarvir, Jal Singh and Isam Singh, have been acquitted of the offence under Section 147, 307 read with 149, 452, 504, 506, IPC, after giving the accused-respondents under benefit of doubt.
We have heard the counsel for the applicant at length and keeping in view the contention as has been raised at the Bar of this Court and has perused the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, this Courts finds that the court concerned has given cogent reasons for arriving at the finding based upon which the verdict of acquittal has been returned. The learned AGA has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the finding as has been recorded, thus by no such imagination it can be said that the view taken by the court below is not a possible or a plausible view. In support of the findings the trial court has observed herein as under. Some of the relevant observations are being extracted herein below:-
^^------------mijksDr rF;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fdlh Hkh izdkj ls ih0MCyw&1 vkseiky dk ,dek= lk{; lEiw.kZ :i ls fo'oluh; lk{; dh Js.kh esa ugh vkrk gS] fo'ks"kdj ml voLFkk esa tcfd ?kVukLFky Hkh lUnsg ds ijs fl} ugha gS rFkk okLro essa ?kVukLFky lk{; ls ifjofrZr gksuk fl} gS ,oa bl :i esa ih0MCyw&1 vkseiky ds ,dek= lk{; ij vU; fdlh iqf"Vdkjd lk{; izR;{k ;k ifjfLFkfrtU; ds vHkko esa iw.kZ fo'okl O;Dr fd;k tkuk vR;kf/kd dfBu gSA pwaWfd i=koyh ij ih0MCyw&1 vkseiky ds lk{; ds leFkZu esa fdlh izdkj dk vU; izR;{k ;k ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; miyC/k ugha gS] vr% ,slh voLFkk esa ih0MCyw&1 vkseiky ds ,dek= lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:} yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ds fy, mudh nks"kflf}] fdlh izdkj ls Hkh lqjf{kr ugha gSA -------------vfHk;kstui{k }kjk izLrqr lk{khx.k ds lk{; dk lEiw.kZ ifj'khyu djus ds mijkUr izFke lwpuk fjiksZVZ ds iw.kZr;k fopkj foe'kZ ,oa fof/kd ijke'kZ ij vk/kkfjr gksus dh lEHkkouk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS] D;ksafd vfHk;qDr eksgj flag ,oa lqHkk"k ds vfrfjDr 'ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k dh vijk/k esa lafyIrrk iw.kZ :i ls laUnsgkLin gS ,oa ?kVukLFky Hkh ifjofrZr gSA bl rF; ds ifjizs{; esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fd;s tkus esa gqvk lkr fnu dk foyEc fuf'pr :i ls vfHk;kstui{k ds fy, vR;kf/kd ?kkrd gS ,oa vfHk;kstui{k dk dsl iw.kZr;k ,oa izkjEHk ls gh lUnsgkLin gks tkrk gSA** After perusal of the impugned judgment which 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) 1 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 interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted.
Accordingly leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018/VKG