Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4158 of 2012 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Monu @ Vishal Khanna Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.6.2006 by means of which the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 307/34 IPC.
Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. has strongly pressed the application for seeking leave to appeal and keeping in view the contention raised at the bar of this Court and the grounds taken in the appeal, the proceeds to examine the findings and the observations of the trial court who has given the verdict of acquittal. The incident is said to be of the year 1998. The appeal itself is pending before this Court since 2006. The record shows that the court concerned has written the verdict of acquittal on the following main grounds:-
(i) That as per the testimony of Investigating Officer it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to place of occurrence, specially, in view of the contradictions of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The I.O. further says that neither any [kwu vkywnk feV~Vh was recovered from the place of occurrence nor any empties were recovered from the place of occurrence.
(ii) The second ground of acquittal is that there exists previous enmity between the parties. This fact also esixts as per the evidence on record and has also not been disputed by learned A.G.A.
(iii) The third ground is that P.W.3 Nand Lal who is an eye witness who is also an injured witness has not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared as hostile. The next ground is that P.W.1 Ram Narayan who is also an eye witness has been declared as hostile. As far as P.W.2 is concerned from the record itself it is apparent that he has received only three injuries and all the three injuries are on the hand, left hand, right hand and elbow and none of the injuries is on the vital part of the body. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State failed to point out any illegality and perversity.
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, the Court being of the opinion that neither any independent witness has been produced nor any criminal history has been shown, all the respondents have been acquitted.
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.
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 moreso in view of the fact that about 10 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 1998.
After perusal of the impugned judgment 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.
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.
Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 31.8.2018 Manish Tripathi