Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 493 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Pradeep Nishad Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Yogeshwar Rai, learned AGA appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgement and order dated 15.12.2017 by means of which the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the offences under Section 390 Cr.P.C.
We have also perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned.
A bare perusal of the record shows that the mother of the victim was examined as PW1 namely, Sumitra Devi and she has been declared as hostile. She has denied the entire prosecution story. Sri Yogeshwar Rai has relied upon the statement of the girl herself who has been examined as PW2. The relevant portion of the cross- examination is being extracted below:
"इस ससाकक्षी ससे बचसाव पक दसारसा जजिरह ककी गयक्षी जजिसमम उसनम कथन ककी हहै कक कदिनसानांक 27/28-05-2017 ककी रसाकत्रि मम उसकसे गसानांव मम आकर स्टसा आयसा हहआ थसा वह अपनक्षी सहसेलक्षी कसे ससाथ आकर स्टसा दिसेखनम गयक्षी थक्षी आरकसे स्टसा ससुबह तक चलसा, ससुबह आकर स्टसा खत्म हहोनम कसे बसादि वह अपनसे घर आयक्षी थक्षी। हसाजजिर अदिसालत मसुललजिम प्रदिक्षीप कनषसादि घटनसा वसालक्षी रसात उसकसे घर नहहीं आयसा थसा और न हक्षी छत पर ससे उसकसा मनांह बसानांधकर गसानांव ससे कसु छ दिर सक्षीवसान पर दिहलसा गसानांव कसे पसास लसे गयसा थसा और न हक्षी प्रदिक्षीप कनषसादि नसे उसकसे ससाथ जिबरदिस्तक्षी बलसात्कसार ककयसा थसा। उसकसे घर ससे और प्रदिक्षीप कसे घर ससे घटनसा कसे समय कसाफकी दिश्मनक्षी थक्षी। इसक्षीजलए उसककी मसानां नसे प्रदिक्षीप कसे जखलसाफ और गसानांव वसाललों कसे कहनम पर झदठसा मकदिमसा दिजिर करसायसा थसा। इस घटनसा कसे सम्बन्ध मम कववसेचक नसे उसकसा ब्यसान नहहीं जलयसा थसा। न्यसायसालय मम जिसे बयसान दिक्षी थक्षी वह अपनक्षी मसानां व दिरहोगसा जिक्षी कसे दिवसाव मम दिक्षी थक्षी उसकसे ससाथ कहोई घटनसा नहहीं घटक्षी थक्षी। उसककी डसाक्टरक्षी मसुआइनसा उसककी मजिर्जी कसे जखलसाफ उसककी मसानां व गसानांव वसाललों कसे दिबसाव हहआ थसा। कववसेचक कहो उसनसे घटनसा स्थल नहहीं कदिखसायक्षी थक्षी और मजजिस्टटसेट महहोदिय कहो अपनसा बयसान अपनक्षी इच्छसा ससे नहहीं दिक्षी थक्षी ककसक्षी और कसे दिबसाव मम नहहीं थक्षी।"
Thus, it is apparent that the girl has not supported the prosecution and on the other hand she categorically states that:
"उससे गसानांव कसा प्रदिक्षीप कनषसादि भगसाकर नहहीं लसे गयसा थसा और न हक्षी उसकसे ससाथ बलसात्कसार ककयसा।"
Reliance has also been placed on the testimony of the girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C from which it appears that the girl was in consensual relationship with the accused, Pradeep. She has gone with Pradeep willingfully. It was only when Pradeep had refused to marry her then the present proceedings have been initiated. The observation of the Court concerned in this regard as under:
"पक्षीकड़ितसा कसा बयसान अन्तगरत धसारसा 164 प्रदिरर क-4 अनांककत करसायसा गयसा हहै जजिसमम कथन यह हहै कक प्रदिक्षीप कनषसादि उसकसे घर कसे पसास रहतसा हहै, पसेन्टर कसा कसाम करतसा हहै। घटनसा 3-4 कदिन पसुरसानक्षी हहै तसारक्षीख यसादि नहहीं हहै। रसात कसे 12-00 बजिसे थसे वह घर पर अकसे लक्षी थक्षी प्रदिक्षीप कनरसादि उसकसे घर आयसा और उससे महोटरससाइककल पर जिबरन बहैठसाकर गसानांव कसे बसाहर लसे गयसा और उसकसे ससाथ जिबरन बलसात्कसार ककयसा और गलत कसाम करनम कसे बसादि प्रदिक्षीप उससे गसानांव कसे नसेतसा कसे घर छहोड़ि कदियसा जिहसानां ससे उसककी मम्मक्षी अगलसे कदिन अपनसे घर लसे आयक्षी। प्रदिक्षीप उसससे रसादिक्षी करनम कहो तहैयसार नहहीं हहै। प्रदिक्षीप कसा उसकसे मम्मक्षी पसाप ससे झगड़िसा हहआ थसा।"
In view of the facts and circumstances no illegality can be attributed to the findings as recorded by the Court concerned.
The Court concerned in view of the facts and circumstances has observed herein below:
"वसाकदिनक्षी मसुकदिमसा शक्षीमतक्षी ससुकमन्त्रिसा दिसेवक्षी नसे स्थसानक्षीय पजसु लस कहो कदियसे गयसे जलजखत तहरक्षीर मम यह कथन ककी हहै कक कदिनसानांक 27/28-04-2017 ककी रसात समय 12 बजिसे ससे 1 बजिसे कसे बक्षीच उसककी लड़िककी कसु मसारक्षी सहोनक्षी उम्र 15 वषर जिब व छत पर सहो रहक्षी थक्षी उसकसे गसानांव कसा रहनम वसालसा प्रदिक्षीप कनषसादि घर कसे पक्षीछसे ससे छत पर चढ़कर उसककी लड़िककी कहो भगसा लसे गयसा तथसा उसकसे ससाथ बलसात्कसार ककयसा। जिब वह चनांगसुल ससे छद टक्षी तहो ससुबह उसनसे ससारक्षी बसातसे बतसायक्षी। जिबकक न्यसायसालय मम वसाकदिनक्षी मसुकदिमसा परक्षीकण कसे दिदौरसान जलजखत तहरक्षीर मम ककयसे गयसे कथनलों कसा समथरन नहहीं ककयसा हहै। इसजलए ऐससा प्रतक्षीत हहो रहसा हहै कक उसकसे दसारसा कमथ्यसा ससाक्ष्य कदियसा गयसा हहै। जजिसकसे जलए प्रककीणर मसुकदिमसा अन्तगरत धसारसा 344 दिनां०प्र०सनां० दिजिर करकसे सनांककप्त कवचसारण ककयसा जिसानसा न्यसाय सगत हहै।"
Thus, it is clear that the Court has disbelieved the entire prosecution story and has also directed that notices be issued to Sumitra Devi for initiating proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C.
Regard may also be had to the consistent legal position with regard to the scope and interference by the High Court in the judgement and order of acquittal. The Apex Court in the case of Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka decided on 09.04.2014 in Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2011 has observed as under:
"The Supreme Court started by citing Lord Russell in Sheo Swarup highlighted the approach of the High Court as an appellate court hearing the appeal against acquittal. Lord Russell said,. "the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as :
(1) The views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses;
(2) The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial;
(3) The right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and
(4) The slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." The opinion of the Lord Russell has been followed over the years.
11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed, "..........the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons."
The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu[3], Madan Mohan Singh[4], Atley[5] , Aher Raja Khima[6], Balbir Singh[7], M.G. Agarwal[8], Noor Khan[9], Khedu Mohton[10], Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade[11], Lekha Yadav[12], Khem Karan[13], Bishan Singh[14], Umedbhai Jadavbhai[15], K. Gopal Reddy[16], Tota Singh[17], Ram Kumar[18], Madan Lal[19], Sambasivan[20], Bhagwan Singh[21], Harijana Thirupala[22], C. Antony[23], K. Gopalakrishna[24], Sanjay Thakran[25] and Chandrappa[26]. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:
(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court,
(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal,
(iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgement of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and
(iv) Merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-
evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.
Reference, may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of 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, Murugesan vs. State through Inspector of Police reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5627.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court below is not possible and plausible thus the judgment of the court below cannot be interfered with by this Court only on account of the fact that another view is possible.
Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the court below and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by trial court is a perverse view. 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. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
The lower court record be sent back to the court concerned at the earliest.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 P Kesari