Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2385 of 2015
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Munna
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Shri Om Prakash Mishra learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.6.2012 by means of which accused respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 307 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:-
mlus Fkkus ij njksxk th ls dgk Fkk fd gekjs bu nksuksa mifLFkr xokgku dks ? kVuk ds p'enhn xokg cuk nsaA blds ckn v:.k o cyoku us njksxk th ls dgk Fkk fd geus ?kVuk ns[kh gS] gesa xokg cuk nsaA ftjg esa vkxs dFku fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDr eqUuk us mldh dksbZ ekjihV ugha dh gSA vfHk;qDr dey us mlds HkkbZ t;flag dks dksbZ ekjihV ugha dhA vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku us rdZ izLrqr djrs gq;s dgk fd orZeku ?kVuk fnukad] LFkku o le; dk dzkl eqdnek ,u0lh0vkj0 ds :i esa oknh dey dh vksj ls Fkkuk dqyigkM+ esa bl eqdnek ds ?kk;yks mRre o t;flag rFkk oknh eqdnek jru flag ds fo:) ntZ djk;k x;k Fkk ftlesa bl eqdnes ds vfHk;qDr e`rd dey dks pksVsa vk;h FkhA bl eqdnes ds oknh jru flag ih0MCyw0&1 o ih0MCyw0&3 t;flag us muds fo:) mDr eqdnek dqyigkM+ vnkyr esa pyus dh ckr Lohdkj dh gSA orZeku eqdnes d foospd ih0MCyw0&6 ;qxjkt flag us viuh ftjg esa dFku fd;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; ekjihV gq;h Fkh ftlls vfHk;qDr dey dks pksVsa vk;h gksaxhA foospd us vkxs ;g Hkh crk;k gS fd mls nkSjku foospuk esfMdy dkyst >kalh ls bykt djk;s tkus ds dkxtkr jsfM;ksykth foHkkx dk ,d ipkZ feyk Fkk ftl ij dksbZ pksaV u gksuk vafdr gS ;g dkxt t;flag ?kk;y dk gS et:c mRRke dk >kalh bykt ugha gqvkA nksuska et:cksa dh pksVsa lk/kkj.k fdLe dh FkhA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk 2009 ¼4½ Ldsy 103] 2013 ¼1 311 lqizhe VqMs U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn vfHk;qDr dh pksVksa dk vfHk;kstui{k }kjk Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k tk jgk gS rks vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ij fo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ;g Hkh Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn xEHkhj pksVas gS rks vkSj egRo gks tkrk gSA vr,o ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu i{k ;g lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS fd vfHk;qDRk dks pksaVs dSls vk;h vkSj vfHk;qDr i{k ;g lkfcr djus esa lQy jgk gS fd mudk dzkl dsl gS vkSj mudh pksVksa dk Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;sktu i{k }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gSA tgkW rd vfHk;qDr dk ;g dFku fd mldks jaft'ku Qalk;k x;k gSA nksuska rjQ ekjihV dh x;h gSA ;g lgh gS fd nksuksa i{kksa ds pksVsa gSA vfHk;kstu }kjk vfHk;qDr dh pksVksa dk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k gSA tcfd vfHk;qDr dey dks pksVsa vk;h gSa bldh bUtjh fjiksVZ izn'kZ [k&1 ds :i esa lkfcr djk;h x;h gSA vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa esa xEHkhj erHksn gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;sktu dgkuh ij fo'okl izdV ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA et:cksa dh pksVas lk/kkj.k izd`fr dh gSA vfHk;qDr dey dks Hkh pksVsa vk;h gS ftldk Li"Vhdj.k vfHk;kstu }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gSA mHk;i{k ds e/; ekjihV gq;h gSA ysfdu i=koyh esa bl ckr dh lk{; ugha gS fd dkSu&lk i{k vkdzked gSA mHk;i{k ds e/; tehu lEcU/kh jaft'k Hkh gSA 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