Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2309 of 2012
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Radha Krishna & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2012 by means of which the accused respondents have been acquitted of the offences under Section 302/34, 201 of IPC.
Learned AGA has strongly pressed the application with the contention that the prosecution evidence has not been appreciated by the court concerned in its correct perspective. He has submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial judge is against the evidence on record. He next submitted that the learned trial judge has committed a patent error of law and ignored the material evidence on record while holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused respondents beyond the reasonable doubt.
We have heard learned AGA at length, we have also perused the findings as has been recorded by the court concerned. The perusal of the record shows that the Trial Court has very seriously in a very harsh language castigated the conduct of the investigating officer. In this regard, the court has observed herein as under:-
xokg dk ftjg esa dguk gS fd cjkenxh ds le; xokgkas us vkilh tkekryk'kh ugha yhA daqMy fdrus cts cjken gq,] ;g /;ku ughaaA eqfYte ds ?kj fdrus cts igaqps] ;g Hkh /;ku ughaA eqfYte ds ?kj dh ryk'kh ds le; vklikl dk dksbZ xokg ugha fy;kA e.Mh lfefr fdrus cts igaqps] ;g Hkh /;ku ughaA e.Mh lfefr ij lkeku fdrus cts cjken gqvk ;g Hkh /;ku ugha gSA eqfYte us dejs dk njoktk viuh tsc esa j[kh pkch ls [kksyk Fkk vkSj fQj cUn djds pkch viuh tsc esa j[k yhA rkyk fdl esd dk Fkk] ;g /;ku ugha gSA mldh dksbZ gqfy;k lh0Mh0 eas vafdr ugha dhA eqfYte cjkcj mudh vfHkj{kk eas jgk fdUrq Fkkus ij dksbZ pkch cjken ugha gqbZA ;g Hkh bruk egRoiw.kZ fojks/kkHkkl gS ftlls vfHk;qDr ds dejs ls eky eqdnekrh cjken gksus dh ?kVuk /okLr gks tkrh gSA xokg dgrk gS fd oknh us viuh fjiksVZ eas ;g ugha fy[kk;k fd eerk fnukad 11-03-1999 dks lk;adky 4%00 cts V~;w'ku i<+us tkrs le; D;k diM+s ifgudj xbZ Fkh vkSj D;k tscj ifgus FkhA oknh us vius c;ku eas Hkh ,lks dkbZs mYys[k bl lk{kh dks ugha fd;kA blfy, bl lk{kh dk c;ku fo'oluh; ugha jg tkrk gSA bl ekeys dks lcls vf/kd {kfr Fkkuk fd'kuh iqfyl us gh igaqpkbZ gSA dfFkr :i ls cjken daqMy] ?kM+h rFkk og csx xk;c dj fn;k x;k] ftleas ls e`rd ds uke dh ekdZ'khV vkSj vU; yM+fd;kas dh ekdZ'khV feyh FkhA eky ds lEcU/k esa ckj&ckj Fkkuk fd'kuh dks ekSds fn;s x;s] psrkouh nh xbZA fnukad 06-02-2012 dks Fkkuk/;{k fd'kuh rFkk iSjksdkj fd'kuh us ;g gh fy[kdj fn;k fd mijksDr eky dgha ij Hkh miyC/k ugha gSA fnukad 09-02-2012 vkSj 13-02-2012 dks Hkh ;gh ckr fy[kdj nh xbZ fd pktZ eas mijkDrs eky eky[kkuk ekgs fjZj dks ugha feyk gS vFkkZr~ xk;c gSA ;fn og csx U;k;ky; esa is'k gksrk ftleas eerk ds uke dh ekdZ'khV Fkh rks bl ekeys dh ,slh n'kk u gksrhA brus xEHkhj vkjksi esa iqfyl us rRijrkiwoZd iSjksdkj ugha dhA blhfy, vfHk;qdr ds fo:) vkjksi lkfcr ugha gqvk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k jk/kkd`".k rFkk d`".keqjkjh dks /kkjk&302@34] 201 Hkk0na0la0 ds vkjksikas ls nk"keqs Dr fd;k tkrk gSA The Court has clearly held that the present case is of circumstantial evidence and the important links and the chains are missing and thus, the Court has exercised the option of returning the verdict of acquittal.
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 respondent and the findings recorded by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence and supported by cogent reasons.
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.
It is one of the established principles of law that a witness may lie but not the circumstances. However, the court must adopt a cautious approach while basing its conviction purely on circumstantial evidence. The standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is well established by a series of decisions of Supreme Court.
According to that standard the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances must be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and further it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
There is this basic rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case of circumstantial evidence, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the court should adopt view which is favorable to the accused.
In reference to cases where there is no direct evidence and the decision has to rest on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court in a line of decisions has consistently held that such evidence must satisfied the following tests:-
(a) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(b) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(c) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
(d) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
Reference, may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622.
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 leave to appeal is refused and application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Ram Chander