Court No. - 11
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2824 of 2009
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Pankaj Mishra
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned AGA, on the application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 696 of 2004 (State Vs. Pankaj Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2000, under Section 354, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kanth, District Shahjahanpur, by which the accused-respondent Pankaj Mishra is acquitted of the charges under Section 354, 323, 504 & 506.
In nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 11.10.2000 at about 4:30'clock when the complainant Suresh Chandra Gautam's daughter Mamta Sagar was coming to her home from Government Inter College, Kanth and when she reached near petrol pump, Kanth, then Pankaj Mishra along with one another boy reached there by scooter and they encircled her and both the boys started to tease Mamta Sagar and when Mamta Sagar objected then both the boys abused her by calling the caste of victim and caught hold of the hand of Mamta Sagar and tried to pull her. When Mamta Sagar raised the alarm then Munna Lal and Nand Kishore reached there.
Learned trial Court has returned the verdict of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case only two witnesses of fact, PW-1 Kumari Mamta Sagar and PW-2 Suresh Chandra Gautam are examined. PW-2 Suresh Chandra Gautam is the complainant in this case and he is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. There are so many contradictions between the statements of PW-1 Kumari Mamta Sagar given in the Court and the statement given before the Investigating Officer. There are contradictions in the FIR as well as in the statement of PW-1 Kumari Mamta Sagar. This is worth mentioning that as per prosecution itself there are two independent witnesses of the fact namely, Munna Lal and Nand Kishore but without any reason witnesses Munna Lal and Nand Kishore are not examined by the prosecution. Thus, in my opinion, the statement of PW-1 Kumari Mamta Sagar which has so many contradictions, is not sufficient to prove the guilt against the accused-respondent.
Perusal of record shows that by stretch of any imagination it cannot be said that view taken by the Trial Court is not a possible view and a plausible view, there is no illegality or irregularity and perversity in the impugned judgment.
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.
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 more than 18 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2000.
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.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 31.8.2018 Kamar