Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2705 of 2001
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Raghubar & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
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 judgment and order dated 21.04.2001, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge(DAA), Lalitpur, in Session Trial No. 6 of 1992, under Sections 395, 411, IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, by means of which the present accused-respondent namely Raghubar, Jandel Singh and Hajju, have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 395, 411, IPC.
Learned A.G.A. 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 great length. We have also perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded a number of categorical findings, relevant of which are being extracted herein as under:-
^^-------------mijksDr fn;s x;s laEiw.kZ fooj.k ,oa fo'ys'k.k ds ckn vfHk;kstu dk bruk dFkkud rks Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd dfFkr ?kVuk okys fnu o le; oknh ohju ds ;gkaW dksbZ pksjh dh ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ gS ysfdu ;g foYdqy Hkh i=koyh ij vk;h lk{; ls] fla) ugh gks ik;k fd ml pksjh dh ?kVuk esa iz'ux.k rhuksa eqfYteku 'kkfey Fks ;k ml ?kVuk esa oknh ohju dk dksbZ tScj bu rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k us ywVk gks ;k bu rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k esa dksbZ ekjihV xokgku ds lkFk dh gksA cfYd mijksDr fd;s x;s fo'ys'k.k ls vfHk;qDr j?kqoj dk ;g c;ku lgh fl) gqvk gS fd esajh iRuh dk dksbZ HkkbZ ugh gS] eSa llqjky dh tk;tkn ij jgrk gwaWA oknh ohju o xokgku] esjh llqjky dh tk;tkn ij dCtk djuk pkgrs gSa] D;ksafd eSa esjs llqj ds [kkunkuh gSaA vfHk;qDrx.k tUnSy flag dk ;g Hkh c;ku lgh fl) gks jgk gS fd eq>s >wBk QaWlk fn;k gS vkSj lgh vfHk;qDrx.k dks NksM fn;k vkSj gTtw dk Hkh ;g c;ku lgh fl) gqvk gS fd bu vfHk;qDrx.kksa dks lHkh xokgku igys ls igpkurs FksA D;ksafd bl vfHk;qDr dh xzke [kMs+jk esa fjLrsnkjh FkhA -------------i=koyh ij nkf[ky lHkh lkrksa etjkcksa dh fpfdRlh; vk[;kvksa ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd lHkh xokgku dks vf/kdrj lk/kkj.k pksaVs vk;ha gSaA bejr pqVSy ds ,d pksV] Hkjk gqvk ?kko ik;k x;k] vkSj bu fpfdRlh; vk[;kvksa ls Hkh vfHk;kstu dFkkud dk dgha ls Hkh leFkZu ugh gks jgk gS] D;ksafd ;fn okLro esa ekj&ihV ds nkSjku vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk vius&vius gkFkksa esa yh gqbZ dqYgkM+h] ykBh] Qjlk] cUnwd ;k dV~Vk dk iz;ksx fd;k x;k gksrk] tSlk fd xokgku us dgk gS rks vf/kdrj xokgku ds izk.k ?kkrd pksVsa] muds 'kjhj ij ik;h tkrh tks fdlh Hkh xokg ds 'kjhj esa ugha ikbZ x;hA vr% bu fpfdRlh; vk[;kvksa ls Hkh dFkkud u rks fl) gks jgk gS vkSj u gh fdlh izdkj ls lefFkZr gks jgk gSA -------------'kkldh; vf/koDrk us vius rdksZ vkSj dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa 1978 ,l0lh0lh] fdzeuy] ist 341] 1997 ,l0 ,l0 lh0] fdzfeuy] ist 51 ,oa 333] U;k;kf;d n`f"Vkar nkf[ky fd;s gSaA -------------'kkldh; vf/koDrk }kjk nkf[ky mijksDr U;k;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds ifjizs{k esa] i=koyh ij vk;h lk{; dk voyksdu djus ds ckn eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqWprk gwaW fd fdlh Hkh vfHk;qDr ds fo:) yxk;k x;k ,d Hkh vkjksi fla) ugha gSA -------------vr% rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ls nks"keqDr fd;s tkus ;ksX;
gSaA** After perusal of the impugned judgment which 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.
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.
At this stage, 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:
1. 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) 1 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, (20 1) 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 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 :- 26.10.2018 VKG