Court No. - 26
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8266 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Naresh Thakur And Others Counsel for Appellant :- G. A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.
The present appeal has been filed along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgement and order dated 21.08.2009 passed in special Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2002 (State of Uttar Pradesh versus Naresh Thakur and others), under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
Submission of learned A.G.A. is that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Two persons are said to be injured and they have supported prosecution case when they were examined before the Court. Prosecution was able to prove date, time and place of occurrence, accused were armed with lathi danda. Medical evidence fully support the prosecution case. Findings recorded by the trial court are perverse. Thus prayer was made to grant leave to appeal.
I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, nothing is mentioned in the First Information Report to ascertain the place of occurrence. Incident is taken place in the month of October. One of witnesses has disclosed the time of evidence at 7 p.m. Trial court finding is that in the month of October till 7 p.m dusk started. Prosecution case is that accused were armed with lathi and danda but injury of P.W. 3 Yogender discloses incised wound. Trial court was of the view that in no case with the use of lathi and danda incised wound would come. Thus on these grounds and other grounds trial court acquitted the accused respondents. If the findings recorded by the trial court are minutely analyzed in light of submission raised by learned AGA and also in consonance with the evidence discussed in the matter, no illegality or infirmity is found. Leave to appeal is allowed only when there is perversity in the impugned judgement of acquittal. No such perversity is found in the impugned judgment and order. It is also pertinent to mention here that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
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 :- 23.8.2018 A.N. Mishra