Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 663 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Puttu Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.03.2018, by means of which the accused-respondents Puttu Singh, Mukesh and Pinku have been acquitted of the offences under sections 364, 342 and 506 IPC by passed learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 1, Kasganj in Session Trial No. 239 of 2009.
We have heard learned A.G.A. at great length and perused the judgment and order dated 28.03.2018 which shows that the trial Court has recorded categorical findings after considering the entire evidence on record.
We find that in the present case the first informant is Smt. Champa Devi wife of Sri Gendalal who is the alleged victim of kidnapping. The incident took place on 23.06.2009 at about 10:45 in the morning and FIR has been lodged on the same day on 23.06.2009 at about 13:30 hours. Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. has informed the court that Champa Devi who has been examined as PW1 and Munnalal PW2 who happens to be son-in-law of Champa Devi were accompanying Gendalal, the alleged victim when the incident of kidnapping occurred. The further contention is that the court concerned has ignored the evidence of the eye witnesses Champa Devi and Munna Lal. The further contention is that as far as the victim Genda Lal is concerned, he was examined as PW2 and his testimony has also been ignored by the court concerned. It may also be appreciated as far as Munna Lal is concerned, he has been named in the FIR itself by the witness.
Keeping in view, the contention raised by Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. at bar to this Court and the findings as recorded by the court concerned, at the very first instant the court finds that previous enmity exists between the parties. A certain amount of money i.e Rs.
50,000/- was handed over to Genda Lal as a loan which was not being returned. In this regard a conditional agreement with regard to the house with the condition of stipulation that as and when the money is returned, the sale deed would be returned in view of the evident would be returned to Genda Lal. However it is appeared that Genda Lal was not returning the money and dispute are raised on the ground that the said incident had took place. The record shows that as far as PW2 is concerned Genda Lal and his testimony has been disbelieved by the court concerned on the ground that xasnkyky ds dksbZ pksV ugha ik;h x;hA ;fn fdlh O;fDr dks ?klhVrs gq, ckx ,oa lM+d ij gksrs gq, xako es ys tk;k tk;sxk rks LokHkkfod :i ls mls ?
klhVus ds fu'kku vo'; vk;saxs vkSj pksVsa vk;saxh ysfdu dksbZ Hkh pksV ih0 MCyw&2 xasnkyky ds 'kjhj ij ugha ik;h x;h gSA The court has further observed that PW2 ;g lgh gS fd dksbZ O;fDr ;fn yEch nwjh rd ?klhVk tk;sxk vkSj reapksa dh cVksa ls mlds flj ij ;k 'kjhj ds vU; fgLlksa ij pksVsa igqWp;h tk, rks fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks xEHkhj pksVsa vkuk LokHkkfod gSA ih0 MCyw0& 2 xsankyky ¼vig`r½ dk dksbZ ,slk esMh+dy ijh{k.k i=koyh ij ugha gS tks ;g lkfcr djrk gks fd ?kVuk ds rqjUr ckn mldh cjkenxh ds ckn mlds 'kjhj ij dksbZ pksV ik;h x;h gksA blfy, ;g dFku ih0 MCyw0&2 xasnkyky esMh+dy fjiksVZ o vU; fdlh xokg ds c;ku ls lefFkZr ugh gSA blfy, ih0 Mcyw0&2 xsankyky dks ?klhV dj ys tkus dk rF; vfHk;kstu lk{; ls lkfcr ugha gSA As far as the testimony of PW3 is concerned he in his cross examination says that Þmls ?kVuk dh rkjh[k ;kn ugha gSA mls ?kVuk dk fnu Hkh ekywe ugha gSA og iqRrq flag dks xkao esa vkus tkus ds dkj.k tkurk gSA ftjg esa ist&2 ij xokg us dgk gS fd ßog xsnkyky dk nkekn gSA og gkft;kiqj] Fkkuk&dfEiy] tuin& Q:Z[kkckn esa jgrk gSA ?kVuk okys fnu og vpkud xkao es igqWpk FkkA ogkW xkWo okyksa us crk;k fd iqRrw flg xsankyky dks idM+ dj ys x, gSA iqRrw flag o xasnkyky ds chp esa :i;ksa ds ysu nsu dks ysdj fookn FkkA iqRrw flga xsankyky ls vius :i;s ekWxrs Fks vkSj blfy, iqRrw flg xsankyky dks idM+dj Fkkus ysdj x;k FkkA og xsankyky ds xkao esa >xMs+ dh [kcj lqudj vk;k Fkk&&&&&&&xsankyky dh iRuh us iqRrw flga] eqds'k o fiadw ds f[kykQ idM+ dk eqdnek fy[kk fn;k gSA bl ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa njksxkth us mldk dksbZ c;ku ugha fy;k FkkAÞ Thus it is apparent that PW3 who happens to be son-in-law of the first informant has not supported the case of prosecution and was bailed out in the FIR itself he has not claimed to be eye witness in this case. The court has observed with regard to his testimony “Li"V gS fd ;g ekSds ij xokg ughaa gS cfYd ;g xokg xkWo gkft;kiqj] Fkkuk&dfEiy] tuin& Q:Z[kkckn dk jgus okyk gS vkSj okfn;k eqdnek Jherh pEiknsoh dk nkekn gS vkSj xkWo okyksa us mls crk;k fd iqRrw flag xsankyky dks idM+ dj Fkkus ys x;kA Li"V gS fd bl xokg us u rks ?kVuk gksrs ns[kh u ;g ?kVuk dk p{kqn'khZ lk{kh gS vkSj blds c;ku ls ?kVuk dh dksbZ iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA As far as the testimony of PW5 Shyam Lal is concerned. Shyam Lal himself claims to be ye witness. However the court placing reliance upon his cross examination as observed herein below:-
“ftjg esa bl xokg us ?kVuk dk dksbZ leFkZu ugha fd;k gS vkSj dgk gS fd Þog ?kVuk ds le; viuh nqdku ij ekStn FkkA mlds lkeus eqfYteku us dksbZ ?kVuk dkfjr ugha dhA njksxkth us mldk dksbZ c;ku ugha fy;k vkSj u mls irk gS fd mldk uke xokgh esa fdl izdkj fy[kk fn;k Xk;kA cfYd mlus xkao eas lquk Fkk fd iqRrqflg o xsankyky ds chp esa :i;ksa ds ysu nsu dk fookn Fkk vkSj xsankyky us iqRrwflg ds f[kykQ >wWVk eqdnek fy[kk fn;k gSA ß bl izdkj bl xokg ds c;ku ls ?kVuk dh dksbZ iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA cfYd bl ckr dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd xsankyky us tks :i;k vfHk;qDr iqRrwflg ls m/kkj fy;k Fkk] mlds fookn ds dkj.k okfn;k ds ek/;e ls ;g >wBk eqdnek vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) fy[kk x;k gSA blfy, bl p'enhn lk{kh us Hkh ?kVuk dk dkbZ leFkZu ugha fd;k gS vkSj bl xokg ds c;ku ls ?kVuk dh dksbZ iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA As far as PW6 is concerned that is Shiv Mangal Singh, he also in his cross examination says that Þ mlus fdlh eqfYte dks xsankyky dk vigj.k djrs ugha ns[kkA mldk ?kj iqRrwflag ds ?kj ls 20 QqV nwjh ij gSA ftl le; iqfyl xkao esa vk;hA ml le; og viuh cSBd esa cSBk FkkAß And thus the court has observed that bl xokg us viuh vkW[kksa ls vigj.k dh ?kVuk dkfjr gksrs gq, ugh ns[khA Keeping in view the aforesaid evidence and keeping in view the testimony of police also observed that victim Genda lal was recovered from the house of Kuttu Singh which was locked from outside the court has observed herein below:-
vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd bl xokg us u rks vfHk;qDrx.k dks xsankyky dk vigj.k djrs gq, ns[kk u dejs esa cUn djrs gq, ns[kkA bl xokg ds lkeus iqfyl us vfHk;qDrx.k ds edku ls xsankyky dks cjken gksuk crk;k gS vkSj rkyk rksM+dj iqRrw flga ds ?kj ls xsnkyky dks cjken gksuk crk;k gS ysfdu u rks ml VwVs gq, rkys o pkch dks U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k fd;k x;k vkSj u gh rkys o pkch dh dksbZ ekSds ij QnZ cuk;h x;h vkSj u gh fdlh vU; p{kqn'khZ lk{kh dks is'k fd;k x;kA ftlds lkeus edku dk rkyk rksMk+ x;k gks ;k [kksyk x;k gks D;ksafd ;g xokg fgrc) lk{kh gSA tSlk fd okfn;k eqdnek o ih0 MCyw0&2 xsankyky ds c;ku ls Li"V gS D;ksafd ih0 MCyw0&2 us vius c;ku esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd f'koeaxy flg mlds ikl mBrs&cSBrs gS vkSj mlds ifjfpr gSA ;g lgh gS fd ;fn f'koeaxy flga ds lkeus ;fn iqfyl okyksa us vfHk;qDrx.k ds ?kj ls rkyk rksM+dj ;k rkyk [kksydj cjkenxh vig`r xsankyky dh Fkh rks ml rkyk o pkch dh QnZ cuk;h tkuh pkfg, Fkh vkSj mls U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k dj lkfcr fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk ysfdu u rks rkys o pkch dh QnZ cuk;h x;h vkSj u mls U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k dj lkfcr fd;k x;kA blfy, vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) xasnkyky dk rkys es cUn djuk vkSj vfHk;qDrx.k ds ?kj ls cjken djuk fdlh Hkh fo'oluh; lk{; ds }kjk lkfcr ugha gSA It remains undisputed between the parties that the alleged lock and accused were never recovered and never produced before this Court.
Thus keeping in view the aforesaid findings, the court concerned has concluded herein as under:-
vfHk;kstu dh lk{; dk tks mijksDr foospu fd;k x;k gSA ml lEiw.kZ lk{; ls ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr iqRrw flag us okfn;k eqdnek Jherh pEiknsoh ds nkekn eqUuk yky dks _.k fn;k Fkk vkSj mlh _.k dks vnk djus ls cpus ds fy, okfn;k }kjk ;g leLr dk;Zokgh dh x;hA i=koyh ij ,slh dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugh gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k iqRrw flag o mlds nksuksa yMds eqds'k ,oa fiadw us okfn;k eqdnek Jherh pEiknsoh ds ifr xsankyky dk vigj.k eqR;q dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls fd;k gksA ih0 MCyw0&1 okfn;k Jherh pEiknsoh ds c;ku ls lkfcr gS fd 01-00 cts rd okfn;k pEiknsoh ds ifr xasnkyky iapk;r esa ekStwn Fks blfy, okfn;k ds ifr xsankyky dk 10-45 cts lqcg ?kVuk ds fnukad 23-06-2009 dks vigj.k f'koeaxy flg ds ckx ds ikl ls fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA tks p'enhn xokg xasnkyky vig`r eqUukyky gS tks fd okfn;k eqdnek Jherh pEiknsoh dk nkekn gSA mlus dksbZ ?kVuk ugh ns[khA tSlk fd mlds c;ku ls lkfcr gS vkSj ';keyky us Hkh dksbZ vigj.k dh ?kVuk dkfjr gksrs ugha ns[khA mlus Hkh vigj.k dh ?kVuk dk leFkZu ugha fd;k gS vkSj f'koeaxy flag us Hkh vigj.k gksrs ugha ns[kk gS vkSj u gh vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk tks d`R; dkfjr fd;k x;kA mls ns[kk gSA ,slh n'kk esa i=koyh ij ,slk dksbZ fo'oluh; lk{; ugha gS tks ;g lkfcr djrh gks fd vig`r xasnkyky dh gR;k dkfjr djus ds vk'k; ls vfHk;qDrx.k iqRrw flga o mlds nksuksa yM+ds eqds'k o fiadw us okfn;k ds ifr xsank yky dk vigj.k fd;k gks vkSj eqfYteku iqRrw flag us mls vius ?kj es tcju gR;k dkfjr djus dh vk'k; ls jksd j[kk gksA D;ksafd cjkenxh dh dk;Zokgh bl ekeys esa vfHk;kstu dh fo'oluh; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij cjkenxh dh dk;Zokgh bl ekeys esa vfHk;kstu dh fo'oluh; lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lkfcr ugha gSaA rkyk pkch dh dksbZ QnZ ugha cuk;h x;h gS u gh mls U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k dj lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA blfy, ftl dejs esa vfHk;qDRkx.k }kjk xasnkyky dks cUn djuk crk;k gS og rF; fo'oluh;rkSj ij ;qfDr;qDr :i ls lkfcr ugha gS vkSj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsuk Hkh bl ekeys esa dgha ls Hkh lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA D;ksafd okfn;k pEiknsoh dk c;ku vkSj vig`r xsankyky dk c;ku fdlh izdkj Hkh fo'oluh; ugha gSA vig`r xasnkyky dks ?klhVus okyh ckr dgh gS ysfdu vig`r ds 'kjhj ij dksbZ pksV ugha ik;h x;h gS u vig`r ds 'kjhj ij vkbZ pksV dks vfHk;kstu dh lk{; ls lkfcr fd;k x;k gSA blfy, vfHk;qDrx.k ds }kjk vig`r xasnkyky dks ?klhV dj ys tk;k x;k rF; Hkh dgha ls vfHk;kstu lk{; }kjk lkfcr ugha gksrk gS vkSj tku ls ekjus ds vk'k; ls vigj.k fd;k x;k gks ;g rF; Hkh vfHk;kstu lk{; ls lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA blfy, /kkjk &364 Hkk0 n0 l0a dk dksbZ vo;o vfHk;kstu lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;qfDRk;qDr laUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugha gS vkSj u gh lnks"k ifjjks/k dk dksbZ vkjksi vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr gksrs gSA D;ksafd vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk vig`r dks tcju dejs esa cUn j[kk x;k bl ckr dh dksbZ fo'oluh;] iq[rk ,oa Lora= lk{; vfHk;kstu is'k ugha dj ik;k gSA blfy, /kkjk&342] Hkk0na0l0 dk vkjksi Hkh bl ekeys esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugha dgk tk ldrk gSA okfn;k eqdnek Jherh PkEiknsoh o mlds ifr xsankyky dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh fn;k tkuk Hkh fdlh xokg dh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugha gSA blfy, /kkjk&506 Hkk0 n0 l0 dk vkjksi Hkh vfHk;kstu dh lk{; ds vk/kkj ij lkfcr ugha dgk tk ldrkA cfYd bl ekeys esa lEiw.kZ lk{; dk foospu djus ls ;gh fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd okfn;k eqdnek pEik nsoh us vius ifr ds lkFk feydj iqfyl dh lgk;rk ;g vigj.k dk ekeyk cuok;k gSA ftlls tks _.k xsankyky ds }kjk vius nkekn eqUuk yky dks vfHk;qDr iqRrwflg ls fnyok;k FkkA mldh vnk;xh u djuh iM+sA D;ksafd iqRrw flag ds gd esa vig`r xasnkyky us vius edku dk 'kfrZ;k cSukek fd;k FkkA tc _.k dh vnk;xh ugha dh x;h rks rglhy ls xsankyky dks uksfVl tkjh djok;k x;kA ;g leLr lk{; xsankyky ds }kjk vius c;ku esa is'k dh x;h gSA blls Li"V gS fd xsankyky us ;g dk;Zokgh viuh iRuh Jherh pEiknsoh ls feydj mlh nsunkjh ls cpus ds fy, dh vkSj iqfyl us bl leLr dk;Zokgh esa okfn;k eqdnek Jherh pEiknsoh o mlds ifr xsankyky dk lg;ksx fd;k] izrhr gksrk gSA Thus keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the fact that even as per the own case of prosecution punchayat has taken place at the house of Kuttu Singh at the relevant time and he was present in the house in the punchayat and entire story of kidnapping as has been filled up in the prosecution itself seen belied.
As regards the exercise of the powers of the Appellate court the Supreme Court in Sanmwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan 1961 SC 715 has laid down three broad principles.
(I) Appellate Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found it.
(ii) The Principles laid down by the judicial committee of the privy counsel in Sheo Swaroop vs. King Emperor ( AIR 1934 PC) page 227 . Afford a correct guide for the appellate court approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal. These principles require that the appellate court should give proper weight and consideration to such matters as, the view of the trial Judge as to credibility of the witnesses, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of doubt, and the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing the findings of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. These matters and guidelines are the "Rules and Principles" in the administration of justice.
(iii) The appellate court in coming to its conclusion should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal, but should also express those reasons to hold that the acquittal was not justified Damodar Prasad Chandrika Prasad vs. State of Maharashtra 1972 (1) SCC 107 .
It follows as a corollary from the above, that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting an acquittal and the other indicating conviction, the appellate court should not interfere merely because it feels, that it would, sitting as a trial court have taken the other view. Two views and conclusions cannot be right and one in favour of the acquittal of the accused must be preferred over the other because our criminal jurisprudence demands that the benefit of doubt must prevail. If, two reasonably, probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the existence of reasonable doubt. Even otherwise we find that the consistent legal position as laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is to the effect that until or unless it can be pointed out that there is some illegality or perversity with the findings as have been recorded by the court concerned or until or unless it can be shown that the view taken by the court concerned while writing a verdict of acquittal is perverse or not possible, the appellate court ought not to interfere.
"Suffice it to say that the Apex 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 demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment 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."
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 acquital. 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.
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.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Swati