Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 404 of 2014 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Ramesh And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava, learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2013 vide which the accused respondent no. 1 has been acquitted of the offences under Section 363, 366, 368, 376 and 506 of IPC and respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have also been acquitted of the offences under Section 363, 366, 368 of IPC.
Learned AGA 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.
In view of the contention as has been raised at the bar of this Court, Sri Rahul Shrivastava, learned AGA and the ground taken in the memo of appeal, the Court has perused the findings of the trial court as recorded to which no illegality or perversity has been pointed out. At the very outset it may be appreciated that as per the medical examination the age of the girl is 17 years. The statement of the girl herself has been deeply gone into by the court concerned and has observed herein as under:-
lk{kh ds vuqlkj ikuhir ls ?kqekrs gq, tc ge eqjknuxj oki, vk, bl chp jes'k 10&15 feuV ds fy, gh tkrk Fkk T;knk nsj dks ugha tkrk FkkA og vUnj dejs esa jgrh Fkh tgka ge :drs Fks [kkuk og cukrh FkhA og vius diM+s /kksdj igurh FkhA mlds ?kj okys mlls feyus vkrs Fks o diM+s mls ns tkrs FksA bl lq>ko dks xyr crk;k fd lkjh dgkuh jes'k ds :i;s gM+ius ds fy, dh o mls >wBk Qalk fn;kA lk{kh ds vuqlkj jes'k xkao ukrs mldk ekek yxrk FkkA bl lq>ko dks xyr fj'rsnkjh ds dkj.k blls 50 gtkj :i;s fy;k gks o ekaxus ij >wBk Qalk fn;kA bl lq>ko dks xyr crk;k fd jes'k us mls cU/kd cukdj u j[kk gksA bl lq>ko dks Hkh xyr crk;k fd jes'k us mlds lkFk cykRdkj u fd;k gksA Even as per the report of the Doctor there are no injuries on the body of the victim. The necessary portion of the same is extracted herein below:-
v0lk0 1 vfHk;ksD=h }kjk viuh lk{; esa dFku fd;k gS fd cykRdkj ds le; mlds 'kjhj esa [kjksaps vk;h Fkh ijUrq vfHk;ksD=h ds fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k o v0lk0 4 MkDVj fu:iek [k=h dh lk{; ls vfHk;ksD=h ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k x;k] bldh iqf"V ugha gksrh gS rFkk mlds 'kjhj ij pksV dk dksbZ fu'kku Hkh ugha ik;k x;k rFkk mls lEHkksx dk vkfn ik;k gSA Further relevant observations made by the learned trial court are extracted herein as under :-
/kkjk 90 Hkk0na0la0 esa lEefr mfYyf[kr gSA lEefr fcuk {kfr Hk; ds v/khu ;g rF; fd Hkze ds v/khu nh gks rks og lEefr ugha ekuh tkrh gSA bl izdj.k ds rF;ksa ij ;fn lEefr vfHk;ksD=h dh fdlh izdkj dh Fkh vFkok ugha ij ykxw fd, tk,a rks ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vfHk;ksD=h tc vius ?kj ls x;h rks vfHk;qDr jes'k mlds ?kj ls mlds lkFk Fkk ftls mldh ekrk }kjk mlds lkFk ns[kk x;k o jes'k ds lkFk og mlds ?kj x;h] tcjnLrh QksVks [khapus dk mldk dFku lkfcr ugha gS] og vfHk;qDr jes'k ds lkFk oSu esa ?kj ls x;h vFkok iSny x;h] bl ij fojks/kkHkkl gSA vfHk;ksD=h ,d LFkku ij jkf= Ms<+ cts vdsys jes'k ds lkFk tkus dk dFku dg jgh gS tcfd nwljs LFkku ij lqcg oSu esa jes'k] pUnziky o mlds fe= ds lkFk oSu esa tkus dk dFku dj jgh gSA og jes'k ds lkFk xkft;kckn ls ikuhir tkrh gSA iwjs jkLrs dksbZ 'kksj ugha epkrh] u Hkkxus dk iz;kl djrh gS] ikuhir esa og jes'k ds lkFk pkj ekg ls vf/kd lkFk jgrh gS] [kkuk [kqn cukrh gS] vius diM+s [kqn /kksrh gS] cl esa b/kj m/kj mlds lkFk tkrh gS] dejs esa jgrh gS ijUrq bruh yEch vof/k esa mlds }kjk u rks dksbZ 'kksj epk;k tkrk gS u gh Hkkxus dk dksbZ iz;kl fd;k tkrk gS vkSj u gh fdlh O;fDr dks tcjnLrh djus dh lwpuk nh tkrh gSA ikuhir ls eqjknuxj rd vkrs gq, og fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ 'kksj vFkok Hkkxus dk dksbZ iz;kl ugha djrh gS vFkkZr~ vfHk;ksD=h bl iwjh vof/k esa vfHk;qDr ds dCts ls Hkkxus dk iz;kl ugha djrh gSA vfHk;ksD=h }kjk Lo;a dFku fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDr ds ikl dksbZ gfFk;kj ugha Fkk] vfHk;ksD=h dks dksbZ QksVksxzkQ vfHk;qDr ls cjken ugha gqvk gSA vfHk;ksD=h dk vfHk;qDr ds lkFk ikuhir esa jgus ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; ,slk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr }kjk vfHk;ksD=h dks ikuhir esa mldh bPNk ds fo:) tcjnLrh j[kk x;k gksA vfHk;ksD=h /kkjk 161 og 164 lh vkj ih lh ds c;kuksa ls gVdj ckj ckj c;ku cny jgh gS vkSj u, u, dFku U;k;ky; esa dj jgh gSA vfHk;ksD=h ds fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k esa mlds 'jhj ds ckg~; o vkUrfjd vaxksa ij fdlh izdkj dh pksVksa ds dksbZ fu'kku ugha ik, x, gSaA ;g lHkh rF; bl vksj bafxr dj jgs gSa fd vfHk;qDr ds lkFk vfHk;ksD=h viuh bPNk ls x;h vkSj mlds lkFk jgh vkSj vfHk;qDr ds lkFk 'kkjhfjd lEcU/k vfHk;ksD=h dh bPNk ls cus vkSj bu lc esa mldh lEefr FkhA vfHk;kstu ;g Hkh lkfcr ugha dj ik;k fd jes'k ds vfrfjDr vU; vfHk;qDrx.k dh D;k Hkwfedk FkhA vfHk;ksD=h }kjk vius 164 lh vkj ih lh ds c;ku esa vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds ckjs esa ek= bruk dFku fd;k gS fd mudh Hkh bl izdj.k esa Hkwfedk Fkh ysfdu D;k Hkwfedk Fkh bls Li"V ugha fd;k x;k gSA tc jes'k mls ?kj ysdj x;k rks ,d LFkku ij og dg jgh gS fd ?kj ij dksbZ ugha Fkk o ftl dejs esa mls cUn j[kk x;k og vdsyh Fkh vkSj ckn esa og ek= vU; vfHk;qDrksa dk bl izdj.k esa jes'k }kjk mls Hkxkus esa lg;ksx fn;k] dk dFku fd;k gS tks fo'oluh; ugha ik;k x;k gSA bl izdj.k esa vfHk;qDr jes'k ds iwjs ifjokj ds lnL;ksa ftuesa efgyk,a Hkh gSa] dks vfHk;qDr cuk;k x;k gS ftlls Hkh ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd iwjk izdj.k ftl ij ls vfHk;kstu }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ml izdkj ls ugha ?kVk gS o lkf{k;ksa }kjk U;k;ky; esa lgh ckr ugha crk;h gS rFkk vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa dk lk{; vU; vfHk;qDrx.k ds laca/k esa Hkh fo'oluh; ugha ik;k tkrkA v0lk0 1 vfHk;ksD=h dk lk{; fo'oluh; ugha gS rFkk ml ij fo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrk rFkk og ckj ckj viuk c;ku cny jgh gSa rFkk vU; lk{kh Hkh fo'oluh; ugha ik, tkrsA mijksDr U;k; fu.kZ; ls ;g Li"V gS fd ;fn vfHk;kstu dk lk{; fo'ks"kdj vfHk;ksD=h ;fn fo'oluh; u gks rks mlds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k dh nks"kflf) ugha dh tk ldrhA vfHk;ksD=h dk dFku mldks vfHk;qDr jes'k }kjk cgyk Qqlykdj ys tkdj dejs esa cUn j[kk x;k rFkk mldh bPNk ds fo:) mlds lkFk cykRlax fd;k x;k rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk mls fdlh izdkj dh /kedh nh x;h gks] ;g lkfcr ugha ik;k tkrkA vfHk;kstu ;g lkfcr ugha dj ik;kA vfHk;kstu vU; vfHk;qDrx.k dh bl izdj.k esa vfHk;ksD=h dh jes'k }kjk Hkxkdj ys tkus] dejs esa cUn j[kus] /kedh nsus ds dFkkud dks lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gSA i=koyh ij miyC/k ekSf[kd ,oa vfHkys[kh; lk{; dk lE;d~ ifj'khyu djus ds mijkUr ,oa fo}ku vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr ds rdkasZ ds izdk'k eas ;g U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kkasZ ij igaqprh gS fd vfHk;ktus vfHk;qDr je'ks ds fo:) vUrxZr /kkjk 363] 366] 368] 376] 506 Hkk0na0la0 ,oa vfHk;qDrx.k pUnziky] lqjs'k] xhrk] izseorh] o foeyk mQZ foeys'k ds fo:) vUrxZr /kkjk 363] 366] 368] 376] 506 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr yxk, x, vkjksiksa dks ;qfDr;qDr lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gS rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k mu ij yxk, x, vkjksiksa ls nks"keqDr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA 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.
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:
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 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.
Let the lower court report be sent back to the court concerned.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 31.8.2018 Ram Chander