Court No. - 34
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3923 of 2009
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Rajpal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This appeal has been preferred alongwith the application for leave to appeal by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Muzaffar Nagar in Session Trial No. 434 of 2001 at case crime no. 17 of 1997 under Sections 328, 342, 506(2) IPC, P.S. Chapar, District Muzaffar Nagar whereby respondents accused have been acquitted from the charges framed against them.
Heard learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the entire record.
It is submitted by the learned AGA that the victim girl, to whom poisonous substance was administered, died on 25.2.1997. Initially at the level of informant effort was made to lodge F.I.R. but the local police did not lodge F.I.R.. Thereafter, an application was moved to the Superintendent of Police concerned and on his direction, F.I.R. was lodged on 26.2.1997. It is also submitted that offences levelled against the accused respondents are proved from the statement of prosecution witnesses. Trial Court on wrong appreciation of prosecution evidence, acquitted the accused respondents. Referring to the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case, it also submitted that all the ingredients of offence under Section 328 IPC have been proved by the prosecution from the statement of PW-1 and PW-
2. Merely on this basis that there was no medical evidence to support the prosecution case, statement of PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be disbelieved. Trial court finding on this point is illegal and perverse.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned AGA appearing for the State and gone through the entire record.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that while acquitting the accused respondents the trial court has observed that nothing was on record to show that any poisonous substance was administered to the victim. No F.I.R. was lodged after receiving the victim girl. The trial court has also observed that there are major contradictions on the material points. If the observations recorded by the trial court are minutely strutinized in consonance of the submissions made by the learned AGA as well as the settled legal position, in my view, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 315 has held as under :
"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."
In the case of Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 298, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
On close scrutiny of entire evidence in consonance with the submissions advanced by the learned A.G.A., observations recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order need no interference.
Application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected.
Since application for leave to appeal is rejected, Government Appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 safi