Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 687 of 2018
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Nafees Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.5.2018 by means of which accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 376(2) (Jha) IPC and ¾ POCSO Act.
We have heard learned AGA at great length and we have also perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned.
It is admitted position on record that the first informant who happens to be the father of the victim is not an eye witness of the incident. The prosecution case as set up in the FIR is not supported by the medical examination report. The doctor who has examined the victim has clearly opined that hymen was intact. There was no injury either external or internal on the body of the victim. No dead or alive spermatozoa was found. The relevant portion of the testimony of the doctor is extracted herein below:-
izfrijh{kk esa bl lk{kh us dFku fd;k gS fd dfFkr ihfM+rk ds dsl esa mldh dkSek;Z f>Yyh lgh FkhA ihfM+rk ds 'kjhj ij okº; ,oa vkUrfjd dksbZ pksV ugha ik;h x;hA dfFkr ihfM+rk ds 'kjhj ij fdlh fiu lwbZ ;k dksbZ uqdhyh oLrq ds dksbZ fu'kku ugha gSaA ihfM+rk ds izkbZosV ikVZ ij CyM ds dksbZ fu'kku ugha feysA ihfM+rk ds 'kjhj ij dksbZ uhyxw] ykfyek vkfn ds fu'kku ugha ik;s x;sA iSFkksykWth fjiksVZ ds v/;;u esa ;g ik;k x;k fd ml ij dksbZ thfor ;k e`r 'kqdzk.kw ugha ik;s x;sA It has also to be appreciated that medical examination of the victim took place within four days of the incident, thus the prosecution story stands defeated by the testimony of the doctor.
izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa mfYyf[kr gS fd] ^^uQhl iq= cn:nnhu dk Qksu vk;k Fkk vkSj dg jgk Fkk fd rqEgkjs ifr us eq>ls :i;s m/kkj ekaxs Fks] mUgsa lCth e.Mh Hkst nksA :i;s ns nwaxkA rc mldh iRuh us mldh yM+dh Qjghu dks ftldh mez 10 lky gS] dks :i;s ysus ds fy;s uQhl iq= cn:nnhu fuoklh ekSgYyk dVjk LVs'ku jksM dLck o Fkkuk /kukSjk ftyk vejksgk ds ikl lCth e.Mh Hkst fn;kA** tcfd oknh us gh] ftls vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1 ds :i esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gS] us viuh lk{; ds i`"B 3 ij dFku fd;k gS fd ^^uQhl 12-00 cts yM+dh dks cqykdj ys x;k FkkA** oknh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ihfM+rk dks vfHk;qDr dk VsyhQksu vkus ij vfHk;qDr ds ?kj Hkstuk vafdr djkrk gS vkSj lk{; esa og ihfM+rk dks vfHk;qDr ds lkFk tkuk crkrk gSA nksuksa dFku vkil esa ?kksj fojks/kkHkk"kh gSa vkSj vfHk;kstu ;g Li"V gh ugha dj ik;k gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ okyk dFku lR; gS vFkok tks dFku lk{; esa oknh ds vk;k gS] og lR; gSA vfHk;qDr ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk ;g Hkh rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd uD'kk utjh esa tks ^^X** LFkku ?kVuk LFky dk nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] og [ksr lx&lCth dk gS vkSj [kpsM+w iq= vej flag dk gS vkSj mlds ikl dksbZ xUus dk [ksr ugha gSA ml [ksr ds nf{k.k esa cksfjax gS] tks chjcy dk [ksr gSA mlds Hkh nf{k.k esa [ksr xUus dk gSA ihfM+rk o oknh ?kVuk LFky xUus dk [ksr crkrs gSa tcfd uD'kk utjh esa ?kVuk LFky nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] og [ksr lkx&lCth dk nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS ftlls Hkh ?kVuk LFky lafnX/k gks tkrk gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 6 us viuh lk{; ds i`"B 6 ij dFku fd;k gS fd ?kVuk LFky dk uD'kk utjh eSaus cuk;k FkkA ?kVuk LFky okys [ksr esa xUus dh Qly Fkh tcfd bl lk{kh us tks uD'kk utjh cuk;k gS vkSj tks i=koyh ij miyC/k gS] mlesa ?
kVuk LFky ^^X** fn[kk;k gS] ogka lkx lCth dk [ksr nf'kZr fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr dh x;h ppkZ ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqprk gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k ?kVuk LFky dks ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs LFkkfir djus esa lQy ugha gks ik;k gS vkSj tc rd vU; LorU= lk{kh ls mldh lEiqf"V ugha gks tkrh rc rd vfHk;kstu }kjk crk;s x;s ?kVuk LFky ij fo'okl fd;s tkus dk dksbZ Bksl vk/kkj ugha gS vkSj mldh vU; lk{; ls lEiqf"V gksuk vko';d gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa vafdr djk;s x;s dFku vkSj lk{; esa fd;s x;s dFkuksa esa ?kksj fojks/kkHkk"k gS vkSj ihfM+rk vfHk;qDr ds lkFk x;h vFkok mlds VsyhQksu djus ds mijkar eka ds funsZ'k ij ?kj ls x;h] ;g vfHk;kstu Li"V ugha dj ik;k gSA The court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded categorical findings, relevant of which are being extracted herein as under:-
vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1@oknh us viuh lk{; ds i`"B 3 ij dFku fd;k gS fd ^^ 2-00 cts ds djhc yM+dh dks ryk'k djus x;k FkkA yM+dh dks ryk'k djus vdsys x;k FkkA uQhl ds ?kj ns[kus ugha x;k FkkA eSa bldh otg ugha crk ldrkA iRuh ds crkus ds ckotwn Hkh uQhl vgen ds ?kj ns[kus D;ksa ugha x;kA tcfd eq[; ijh{kk ds i`"B 1 ij bl lk{kh us dFku fd;k gS fd eSa mls ryk'k djus x;k] ugha feyhA QSDVªh ds ikl xUus ds [ksr esa Qjghu ijs'kku gkyr esa feyhA blds vfrfjDr ;g lk{kh bl fy;s Hkh fo'oluh; ugha gS D;ksafd bl lk{kh us vius lk{; ds i`"B 3 esa dFku fd;k gS fd xqe'kqnxh dh lwpuk nh Fkh tcfd i=koyh ij dksbZ xqe'kqnxh dh lwpuk miyC/k ugha gS vkSj i`"B 4 ij bl lk{kh us dFku fd;k gS fd ;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs lkeus ?kVuk ugha ?kVh gS vkSj iRuh ds crk;s vuqlkj gh c;ku fn;k gSA 50& bl lk{kh us vius /kkjk 164 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds c;ku esa dFku fd;k gS fd ^^,d dksYM Lvksj ds ikl bZ[k ds chp esa eq>s [khap ys x;kA eSaus Hkkxus dh dksf'k'k dh rks eq>s nokbZ ls csgks'k dj fn;kA** tcfd izfrijh{kk ds i`"B 3 ij bl lk{kh us dFku fd;k gS fd ^^/kkjk 164 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds c;kuksa esa] ^^eq>s nokbZ ls csgks'k dj fn;k] ^^fQj eq>s irk ugha D;k gqvk] oks okyh ckr vxj fy[kh gS] rks eSa otg ugha crk ldrhA eSaus ,slk dksbZ c;ku fdlh dks ugha fn;kA** bl lk{kh ds mijksDr c;ku ls Li"V gksrk gS fd oknh dh eqykdkr ihfM+rk ls 1-30 gks x;h Fkh vkSj nwljs izLrj esa tks lk{; fn;k gS mlls izrhrk gksrk gS fd ihfM+rk dh eka] ftls vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 3 ds :i esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gS] ?kVuk LFky ij ekStwn Fkh vkSj vfHk;qDr us mls /kDdk fn;k Fkk ftlls ihfM+rk dh eka dh dej esa pksV vk;h Fkh ijUrq vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 2 us i`"B rhu ij dFku fd;k gS fd eSaus ikik dks lkjh crk crk nh FkhA tcfd vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 3 tks fd ihfM+rk dh eka gS] us viuh lk{; ds i`"B 3 esa dFku fd;k gS fd esjs ifr 2-00&2-30 cts eqjknkckn ls ykSVdj vk;s FksA vkrs gh 2&4 feuV ckn esjs crkus ij <wa<us pys x;s FksA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 3 }kjk tks c;ku fn;k x;k gS] mlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd og ?kVuk LFky ij ekStwn Fkh vkSj mlds ifr 2-00&2-30 cts ?kj vk;s Fks vkSj vkrs gh ihfM+rk dks <wa<us x;s FksA ihfM+rk dh eka o ihfM+rk ds lk{; esa ?kksj fojks/kkHkk"k gSA ihfM+rk 1-30 cts oknh@vius vCcw ls eqykdkr gksuk vius lk{; esa crkrh gS tcfd ihfM+rk dh eka oknh dks ?kj ls gh 2-30 cts ds mijkar <wa<us ds fy;s Hkstuk crkrh gSA ihfM+rk ds c;ku ls ihfM+rk dh eka dk ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkr gksuk lkfcr gksrk gS vkSj vfHk;qDr }kjk /kDdk nsus ls pksV yxuk crk;k tkrk gS tcfd ihfM+rk dh eka] ftls vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 3 ds :i esa vfHk;kstu }kjk ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gS] ds c;ku ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd og ?kVuk LFky ij ekStwn ugha Fkh] cfYd og ?kj ij FkhA ihfM+rk us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa dFku fd;k gS fd bZ[k ds vUnj ys tkdj esjh lyokj mrkjdj esjs lkFk xyr dke fd;k rc eSa csgks'k gks x;hA /kkjk 164 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds v/khu fn;s x;s c;ku esa ihfM+rk us dFku fd;k gS fd bl vkneh us esjs lkFk dqN xyr dke fd;k ;k ugha] crk ugha ldrh] D;ksafd eSa csgks'k gks x;h FkhA vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 3 tks fd ihfM+rk dh eka gS] us viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa dFku fd;k gS fd eq>s esjh yM+dh us crk;k fd lCth e.Mh ls uQhl /kukSjh jksM+ ij ys x;k FkkA ogka ij QSDVªh ds ikl xUus ds [ksr esa esjs lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA bl lk{kh ds mijksDr lk{; ls Li"V gS fd ;g lk{kh ?kVuk dh p{kqn'khZ lk{kh ugha gS] vkSj tks Hkh blus lk{; fn;k gS] og lquh lqukbZ ckr dk lk{; fn;k gS vkSj mijksDr mfYyf[kr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij bl lk{kh }kjk tks lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] og vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1 o vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 2 ds }kjk fn;s x;s lk{; dh iqujko`fRr ek= gS ftldk fo'ys"k.k vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 1 o vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 2 ds lk{; dh laoh{kk djrs le; fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj mldh eq[; ijh{kk esa fn;s x;s lk[; dk iwoZ esa Hkh mYys[k fd;k fd;k tk pqdk gS ftlds vR;f/kd fo'ys"k.k dh vko';drk ugha gSA And thus the court concerned on the basis of said observations has concluded herein as under:-
lk{; dh mijksDr mfYyf[kr laoh{kk djus ds i'pkr mijksDr fof/k O;oLFkkvksa ds vkyksd esa ;g U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqprk gS fd vfHk;kstu }kjk vkSj fo'ks"k :i ls vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 2@ihfM+rk }kjk is'k fd;s tkus ds fy;s bZfIlr lEiw.kZ dgkuh lafnX/k vkSj ijLij fojks/k esa gksuk izrhrk gksrh gSA ihfM+rk ds c;ku esa le;≤ ij ifjorZu gqvk gqvk gS vkSj ihfM+rk ds 'kjhj ij migfr dk dksbZ fpUg ugha gSA lEcfU/kr ifjfLFkfr;ka] fpfdRlh; lk{;] ihfM+rk ds ifjlk{; esa fo'okl mRiUu djus ds fy;s vlEHkkO; ,oa vlR; cuk nsrs gSaA ihfM+rk dk lk{; ,slh xq.koRrk dk ugha gS ftl ij fo'okl fd;k tk lds vkSj ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; nwj ls Hkh mldk leFkZu ugha djrk gSA 'ks"k rF; ds lk{khx.k gSa vkSj mudk lk{; Hkh vfrjatuk ,oa ijLij fojks/k ls iw.kZ gSA ,sls vfo'oluh; vkSj vfo'okl ;ksX; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fdlh O;fDr dks nks"k fl) djuk vlqjf{kr gksxkA ifj.kkeLo:i ;g U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqprk gS fd vfHk;qDr lUnsg dk ykHk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 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 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.
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, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 SP