Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2336 of 2011 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Rajesh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2010 by means of which the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offences under sections 148, 302/149 IPC in Case Crime No. 48 of 2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Court No. 3, District Etah in Sessions Trial No. 989 of 2006. Inspite of this accused Rajesh has been acquitted in case crime no. 49 of 2006 under section 25 Arms Act, accused Satyaveer has been acquitted in case crime no. 57 of 2006 under section 25 Arms Act and accused Pinku has been acquitted in case crime no. 50 of 2006 under section 25 Arms Act.
We have heard learned A.G.A. at great length and we have also perused the findings as has been recorded by the court concerned. Lower court record is also available.
Learned A.G.A. has pressed the appeal with the contention that this come on record that deceased received number of gunshot injuries and testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 has been disbelieved by the court concerned and there are minor contradictions.
The court proceeds to examine the findings as recorded by the court concerned, the court concerned has clearly observed that PW-1 and PW-2 who happens to be father and son, there are vast contradictions in the testimony of both the witnesses. The court has further observed herein as under:-
vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd izLrqr ekeys esa vfHk;kstu i{k ds dFkukuqlkj ?kVuk fnu ds 7-00 cts dh gSA vr% ?kVuk ds fnu dkQh yksxksa } kjk ?kVuk dks ns[kk tkuk LokHkkfod gS ftls vfHk;kstu i{k us Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gS] ijUrq blds ckotwn Hkh xkao dk dksbZ O;fDr lk{; esa izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gS] cfYd tks rF;ked lk{kh izLrqr fd;s x;s gS og e`rd ds firk o iq= gS vr% os fgrc) lk{kh gSA With regard to testimony of PW-1 the court has observed herein as under:-
ih0 MCyw0&1 tks bl ekeys dk oknh gS] us viuh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa fiadw iq= lwjrjke dks vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk ukfer fd;k gS vkSj ;g Hkh dgk gS fd lHkh vfHk;qDrx.k mlh ds xkao ds gSA ,slk dFku mlus viuh eq[; ijh{kk esa fd;k gS ijUrq ;g lk{kh viuh izfr ijh{kk esa dFku djrk gS fd mlds xkao esa fiadw iq= lwjrjke uke dk dksbZ O;fDr ugha gSA blds vykok ;g lk{kh ;g Hkh dFku djrk gS fd mls ugha ekywe fd Qk;j dgka ls fd;s x;s Fks vkSj ;g Hkh dgrk gS fd mlus Qk;j gksrs gq;s ns[ks Fks vkSj vfHk;qDrx.k e`rd dks pkjksa vksj ls ?ksj dj Qk;j dj jgs FksA blds vykok ;g lk{kh ;g Hkh dFku djrk gS fd og ugha crk ldrk fd mlds yMds dks Qk;j fxjs ij fd;s Fks ;k [kM+s ijA og rks ckn esa igaqpk Fkk vkSj fQj ;g lk{kh ;g Hkh dgrk gS fd mlds ekSds ij igaqpus ds ckn 4&5 Qk;j mlds csVs ij fd;s Fks] ftles ls nks Qk;j mlds csVs ij yxs FksA bl izdkj ;g lk{kh ;g Hkh Lohdkj djrk gS fd Qk;j dgka ls gq;s og ugha crk ldrk vkSj lkFk gh lkFk ;g Hkh dFku djrk gS fd mlus Qk;j djrs gq;s ns[kk Fkk vkSj ;g lk{kh ;g Hkh crkrk gS fd mlds yM+ds ij fxjs gq;s ij Qk;j fd;s Fks vkSj ;g Hkh dgrk gS fd og ugh crk ldrk fd mlds yM+ds ij Qk;j fxjs ij fd;s Fks ;k [kMs+ ij fd;s FksA And thereafter with regard to the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 the court has observed herein as under:-
vfHk;kstu i{k ds dFkukuqlkj ih0 MCyw0&1 ,oa ih0 MCyw&2 nksuksa gh ?kVuk ds p{kqn'khZ lk{kh gSA ih0 MCyw0&1 dk dFku gS fd tc ?kVuk gq;h rks og viuh cSBd ij cSBk gqvk Fkk vkSj mldk ukrh ih0 MCyw0&2 iIiw Hkh mlds lkFk cSBk gqvk Fkk vkSj os nksuksa Qk;j dh vkokt lqudj ekSds ij igqps Fks] tcfd ih0 MCyw0&2 tks e`rd dk iq= gS mlus vius c;ku esa ckj ckj Li"V :i ls crk;k gS fd og vius firk ds lkFk 'kkSp djus x;k FkkA vkSj ?kVuk ds le; og vius firk ls 20 dne ihNs FkkA bl izdkj] ?kVuk ds nksuksa gh p{kqn'khZ lk{kh ;g rks crkrs gS fd os ?
kVukLFky ij xksyh dh vkokt lqudj rqjar igqp x;s Fks ijUrq bl lEcU/k esa fojks/kkHkklh dFku djrs gSA nwljs ih0 MCyw0& 2 dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd vfHk;qDr x.k us e`rd dks Qk;j djus ds ckn lk{kh ds Åij Hkh Qk;j fd;s Fks] tc fd ih0 MCyw0&1 vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk lkf{k;ksa ij dksbZ Qk;j djuk ugha crkrk gSA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ?kVuk LFky ij tc Qk;j dh vkokt gq;h Fkh rks ih0 Mcyw&1 ogka ls 20&25 dne dh nwjh ij FkkA blh izdkj ih0 MCyw0&2 Hkh 20&25 dne dh nwjh ij nwljh fn'kk esa Fkk] rks ;g nksuksa dk ?kVukLFky ij ,d lkFk igaqpuk LokHkkfod gks ldrk gSA ijUrq ;g nksuksa gh lk{kh eSuj vkWQ vklWYV dks fHkUu fHkUu :i ls crkrs gS] ftlls bu nksuksa lkf{k;ksa dh ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkfr lafnX/k izrhr gksrh gSA vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dh lk{; esa ;g Hkh vk;k gS fd tSlk fd ih0 MCyw0&2 us crk;k fd tc og vkSj mlds firk 'kkSp djus ds fy;s x;s Fks rc vfHk;qDrx.k ? kVuk LFky ij ekStwn FksA ih0 MCyw0&2 o e`rd vkcknh ls ckgj ?kVukLFky ls ,d fdyksehVj dh nwjh ij 'kkSp djus ds fy;s x;s FksA ;fn vfHk;qDrx.k ml le; ? kVukLFky ij ekStwn Fks rks ;g LokHkkfod Fkk fd vfHk;qDrx.k e`rd ds ihNs ihNs tkdj vkcknh ds ckgj tkdj mldh gR;k dj nsrs u fd mlds okfil ykSVus dk bartkj djrs vkSj ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd bl ?kVuk ls 15 o"kZ iwoZ vfHk;qDr lwjrjke ds iq= dh gR;k gq;h Fkh] ftles e`rd o ih0 MCyw0&1 dks vU; yksxks ds lkFk ukfer fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj ml ekeys es ltk gq;h FkhA vkSj mlh dh jaft'k dh otg ls izLrqr ekeys es e`rd dh gR;k dh x;hA ;fn gR;k dk ;gh dkj.k gksrk rks vfHk;qDrx.k tks la[;k esa lkr Fks vkSj ih0 MCyw0&1 tks ekSds ij ?kVuk ds le; igaqp x;k Fkk rks mldh Hkh gR;k dj nsrs] D;ksafd ih0 MCyw0&1 ds dFkukuqlkj vfHk;qDrx.k dh ftruh jaft'k e`rd ls Fkh] mruh gh jaft'k ih0 MCyw0&1 ls Hkh Fkh] ijUrq muds }kjk ,slk dksbZ iz;kl ugha fd;k x;kA izLrqr ekeys esa vfHk;kstu i{k ds dFkukuqlkj ?kVuk lqcg ds 7-00 cts dh gS vkSj xkao ds vanj dh gS] ijUrq vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls ek= nks rF;kRed lk{khx.k ih0 MCyw0&1 ,oa ih0 MCyw0&2 gh izLrqr fd;s x;s gS tks dze'k% e`rd ds firk o iq= gSA bl izdkj fufoZokn :i ls dksbZ Lora= ,oa fu"i{k lk{kh izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;fn fdlh le; oknh i{k }kjk vfHk;qDr i{k ds fdlh O;fDr dh gR;k dh x;h gks vkSj tc oknh i{k ds fdlh O;fDr dh gR;k gq;h gks rks vfHk;qDr i{k ij lansg gksuk LokHkkfod gS ijUrq lansg pkgs fdruk gh izcy D;ksa u gks] lk{; dk LFkku x`g.k ugha dj ldrkA ih0 MCyw0&1 ,oa ih0 MCyw0&2 tks fd e`rd ds firk ,oa iq= gS fd lk{;
dh xq.koRrk bl Lrj dh ugha gS fd mudh lk{; ij fdlh Lora= lk{kh dh lk{; ds vkHkko esa fo'okl fd;k tk ldsA vkSj i=koyh ij miyC/k fpfdRlh; lk{; ls Hkh vfHk;kstu i{k ds dFku lafnX/k izrhr gksrk gSA mijksDr lEiw.kZ fo'ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igaqprk gwW fd vfHk;kstu i{k lansg ls ijs ;g lkfcr djus esa foQy jgk gS fd e`rd dh gR;k vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk dh x;h gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k lansg dk ykHk ikrs gq;s mu ij yxk;s x;s gR;k fd vkjksi ls nks"keqDr gksus ;ksX; gSA vfHk;kstu i{k dk dFku gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k lR;ohj] jkts'k ,oa fiadw ls ogh reaps cjken gq;s ftuls mUgksus e`rd dh gR;k dh FkhA bl laca/k esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd bu vfHk;qDrksa ls raepksa dh cjkenxh dk dksbZ Lora= ,oa fu"i{k lk{kh ugh gS vkSj bu rhuksa gh ekeyksa esa foospuk oknh ds v/khuLFk vf/kdkjh }kjk dh x;h gS tks fo'okl fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugh gS tSlk fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk j?kqohj flag cuke mRrj izns'k jkT; 1995 ¼32½ ,0 lh0 lh0 ist 216 eas fl)kUr izfr ikfnr fd;k x;k gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ls ;g rF; fufoZokn gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ls reapks dh cjkenxh dk dksbZ turk dk xokg ugha gSA ;g rF; Hkh fufoZokn gS fd foospuk oknh ds v/khuLFk vf/kdkjh }kjk dh x;h gSA j?kqohj flag okys ekeys esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ;g fof/k O;oLFkk nh x;h gS fd ,slh foospuk ij Hkjkslk ugh fd;k tk ldrk] ftles ofj"B iqfyl vf/kdkjh us vius v/khuLFk vf/kdkjh dks foospuk dk dk;ZHkkj lkSik gks D;ksfd ofj"B vf/kdkjh ds fdz;kdyki ds laca/k esa dfu"B vf/kdkjh }kjk fu"i{k foospuk dh mEehn ugh dh tk ldrh gS vkSj ,slh foospuk ij Hkjkslk ugh fd;k tk ldrk gSAC, D, E,F,G, 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:
11. 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) 11 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, (2011) 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 .
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.
Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Swati