Court No. - 41
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1915 of 2013
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Raghuraj & 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
Learned A.G.A. states that he has received some documents and he shall advance his arguments on the basis of the same and there is no requirement to file any document or papers for assailing the judgment and order impugned.
This government appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.1.2013 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2011 (State versus Raghuraj and others) arising out of case crime No. 258 of 2010 under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, police station Badalpur, district Gautam Budh Nagar whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offences punishable under the sections referred to above.
Heard learned A.G.A. on application seeking leave to appeal and perused the material on record.
It is contended by learned A.G.A. that as per prosecution version, a written report was filed on 15.9.2010 at about 5.00 p.m. by a resident of the same village alleging that Raghuraj with his sons Jitendra, Harendra and brothers Ashok and Naresh have committed the murder of their daughter Gunjan aged about 17 years by poisoning and strangulating and thereafter they have burnt the dead body at Dujana Shamshanghat. The motive of honour killing was that Gunjan had eloped twice with the son of brother- in-law of one Hansa therefore, her father, uncles and brothers themselves killed her. Learned A.G.A. contends that though all the prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and have turned hostile however the Doctor under whose treatment the victim was medically treated has stated that she was under her treatment from 10.9.2010 to 14.9.2010 thereafter she became fit and discharged but on the same day, she expired. It is thus, clearly evident that her death was not natural and it was nothing but her honour killing by the father and brothers, therefore, order impugned acquitting the accused respondents cannot be sustained.
A perusal of the evidence available on record shows that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution have turned hostile. There is not even any circumstantial evidence against the accused-respondents on the basis of which it can be said that the death of the victim is a result of her honour killing by accused respondents. There is no post mortem report as it was not done. The burnt remains of the victim were sent for DNA test and as per the DNA report the victim was not poisoned.
Under these circumstances, the trial court found the prosecution case doubtful and acquitted the accused- respondents. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the observation/findings of acquittal recorded by the court below. The view taken by the learned trial court is a possible view and the golden thread which runs through the administration of criminal justice while hearing the appeal against the acquittal is that even if two views are possible on the evidence, one pointing towards the guilt of the accused and other towards their innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted and the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed by the appellate court. The reason is that while passing the order of acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is re-inforced.
In Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujrat; 1996 (9) SCC 225, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : -
"...in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocence unless he is proved to be guilty by a competent court and secondly the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of innocence is, re-enforced and strengthened by the trial court "
In Mahadeo Laxman Sarane vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 705, the Apex Court has observed that : -
"It is true, that the settled legal position is that in an appeal against acquittal the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal if on the basis of the same evidence two views are reasonably possible-one in favour of the accused and the other against him. In such a case if the trial court takes a view in favour of the accused, the High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal."
In C. Antony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1, the Apex Court has laid down the law as follows:-
"Unless the findings of trial court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, High Court cannot, in appeal, substitute its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of the material on record."
In Sirajuddin Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 4 SCC 375, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle in the following words:-
"Where trial Court's order of acquittal is based on a reasonably possible view, High court should not, as a rule of prudence, disturb the acquittal."
Considering the facts and circumstances in wake of the above cited legal position, we do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant.
The application seeking leave to appeal is rejected and consequently the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 faraz