Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 695 of 2018
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Rajendra Rajbhar And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Patanjali Misra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the application seeking leave to appeal and perused the record.
The present government appeal has been filed along with an application for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar in S.T. No. 37/2009 whereby accused-respondents, namely, Rajendra Rajbhar and Gulab have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 304 IPC P.S. Ahirauli Bazar, District Kushi Nagar.
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 has 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 perused the judgment and order dated 03.05.2018 and the findings as recorded therein.
While returning the verdict of acquittal, the court concerned has recorded a number of findings and the relevant portion of which are being quoted herein below:
“Åij ppkZ eas vk pqdk gS fd dfFkr ?kVuk ds lc/aa k esa fdlh p'enhn xokg dk lk{; i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gS] dsoy ih-
MCyw&1 Jherh nqxkZorh dk dfFkr ?kVuk ds leFkZu eas rugk o vlEiq"V gSA lk{; gS tks bl izdkj ih-MCyw&4 Mk0oh-ih- ujflj;k ds }kjk e`rd ds 'kjhj ij dksbZ Hkh /kkj dh rjQ dh dqYgkM+h dh pksV ugha ik;h x;h vFkkZr e`rd ds 'kjhj ij dksbZ Hkh bulkbTM oq.M ugha Ikk;h x;h] tcfd okfnuh ih-MCyw&1 Jherh nqxkZorh us vius c;ku dh ftjg rkjh[kh 09-08-2017 eas ;g lk{; fn;k gS fd mlds ifr dks eqfYteku ds }kjk dqYgkM+h dh /kkj ls chlkas ckj ekjk x;k FkkA bl izdkj ih-
MCyw&4 Mk0 oh-ih-ujflj;k ds }kjk e`rd ds 'kjhj ij dqYgkM+h dh /kkj dh dksbZ Hkh pksV u ik;s tkus ls ih-MCyw&1 Jherh nqxkZorh dks mDr lk{; iw.kZr;k vfo'oluh; gks tkrk gS vFkkZr ih-MCyw&1 Jherh nqxkZorh ds mDr lk{; dk leFkZu fpfdRlh; lk{; ls Hkh ugh gksrk gSA bu ifjfLFkfr;kas eas okfnuh ih-MCyw&1 Jherh nqxkZorh ds lk{;
ls ekSds ij mldh ekStwnxh ds laca/k eas lna gs mRiUu gkrs k gS fd mlds }kjk ftl izdkj ls rgjhjh fjiksVZ izn'kZ d&1 tks izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ gS vkSj tks vkijkf/kd ekeykas eas vfHk;kstu dFkkud dh uhao ekuh tkrh gS] ds izdk'k eas ih-MCyw&1 Jherh nxq kZorh dk lk{;
fo'oluh; ugha Ikk;k tkrk gSA u dsoy ;g lkf{k;k vius lk{; ds ek/;e ls vkaf'kd ?kVukLFkykas dsk ifjofrZr dj f'k¶V dh gS cfYd ,d rjQ dfFkr vkaf'kd ?kVuk dks ns[kuk vkSj fQj bUdkj djuk rFkk fQj eafnj ds ikl dfFkr ?kVuk gksuk vkSj mldks xkao okykas ds }kjk ns[kuk crkuk vkSj mueas ls fdlh Hkh O;fDr dk uke u mfYyf[kr djuk o njokts ds lkeus vius }kjk ?kVuk ns[kuk vkSj dqYgkM+h ds /kkjnkj fgLls ls eqfYteku ds }kjk vius ifr dks pksVas igqWpkuk ;s lHkh rF; ,oa lk{; ijLij fojk/kkHkk"kh gksus ds lkFk lkFk rgjhjh fjiksVZ izn'kZ d&1 ds dFkkud ls Hkh lkjoku :i ls fojks/kkHkklh gksus o blds vfrfjDr bl lkf{k;k dk lk{; rugk gksus rFkk ,slk xokg vfHk;kstu vnkyr ds foVusl ckDl eas izLrrq ugha djk ik;h tks rgjhjh fjiksVZ ds dFkkud vFkok ftl izdkj l s ih- MCyw&1 Jherh nqxkZorh }kjk dfFkr ?kVuk gksus dk lk{; fn;k x;k gS] dk leFkZu dj ikrkA ih-MCyw&1 Jherh nqxkZorh dk lk{;
mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ds lanHkZ eas bl lk[k vFkok egRrk dk ugha gS] ftlds vk/kkj ij eqfYteku ds fo:) dfFkr ?kVuk dks lansg ls ijs dkfjr djuk eku fy;k tk; vkSj rnuqlkj eqfYteku ds fo:) mDr /kkjk ds v/khu vkjksi dks Hkh 'kd dh lhek ls ijs eku fy;k tk;A ih-MCyw&1 Jherh nqxkZorh dk lk{; ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds } kjk fu/kkZfjr ekud ij [kjk ugha mrjrk gSA i=koyh ij dfFkr ?kVuk ds rF;ksa ds laca/k easa vU; dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha gSA mDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vnkyr bl urhts ij igqWprk gS fd i=koyh ij eqfYteku jktsUnz jktHkj o xqykc ds fo:) rF;ksa ls lacaf/kr ;g vkjksi lansg ls ijs fl) djus ds fy;s Ik;kZIr lk{; miyC/k ugh gS fd muds }kjk fnukad 13-08-2008 dks ogn xzke eksrhpd] Fkkuk& vfgjkSyh cktkj] ftyk& dq'khuxj eas okfnuh nqxkZorh ds ifrh rwQkuh dks vpkud 'kjkc ds u'ks eas >xM+k dj dqYgkM+h ls ekjdj pksV igWqpk;h] ftlds QyLo:i mldh e`R;q gks x;h FkhA mDr /kkjk ds v/khu vkjksi dks eqfYteku ds fo:) mDr vkSjpkfjd lk{; ds vk/kkj ij rF;kas ls lacfa /kr Ik;kZIr lk{; ds vHkko eas fu%lUngs lkfcr ekuk tkuk fl) ugha gkrs k gSA orZeku izdj.k /kkjk 304 rk0 fg0 ds v/khu vijk/k ls lacaf/kr gS] vr% vfHk;kstu dh ;g ftEesnkjh gS fd og mDr /kkjkvkas ds v/khu vkjksi dks nksukas ijUrq ,slk djus eas eqfYteku ds fo:) lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djs] vfHk;kstu dkflj jgk gS] vr% eqfYteku ds fo:) /kkjk 304 rk0 fg0 fd v/khu vkjksi fu%lUnsg lkfcr ugha gS vkSj bl izdj.k dh mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eqfYteku jktsUnz jktHkj ,oa xqykc dks mDr frfFk o le; ij rwQkuh ds lkFk dqYgkM+h ls ekjdj pksV igqWpkus ds QyLo:i mldh e`R;q gks tkus ds laca/k eas lna gs dk ykHk foLrkfjr fd;s tkus ;kX;s gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij vnkyr bl urhts ij igWqprk gS fd eqfYteku jktsUnz o xqykc ds fo:) /kkjk 304 rk0 fg0 ds v/khu vkjksi fu%lUnsg lkfcr u gksus ds vk/kkj ij nks"kh djkj ugha fn;k tk ldrk gS] QyLo:Ik mDr nksuksa eqfYteku mDr /kkjk ds v/khu vkjksi ls cjh gksus ;ksX; gSaA”
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.
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.
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 moreso in view of the fact that more than 10 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2008.
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 respondents and the findings recorded by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence and supported by cogent reasons.
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 :- 24.08.2018 Anand