Court No. - 11
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7768 of 2008
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ramroop Yadav And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Ghazipur in S.T. No. 130 of 2004 (State of U.P. Vs. Ramroop Yadav and others), by this impugned judgment Trial Court has convicted the accused/respondents Ramroop Yadav, Ramesh Yadav, Manoj Yadav and Surendra Yadav under Sections 325/34, 323/34 IPC and acquitted from the charge under sections 308 and 506 IPC.
In nutshell the prosecution case is that the complainant Sita Ram is the resident of village Rehaddi, Police Station - Saidpur, District Ghazipur. The field of complainant is adjacent to the courtyard of the house of the complainant. The field of the complainant is on the northern side of the house of the complainant. There was a wall of mud of the complainant's house which fell down. Complainant was digging to construct a new wall. On 15.05.2003 at 7:30 am. Dalsingar, Ramesh son of Dalsingar, Ramroop son of Dalsingar, Manoj son of Ramroop Yadav, and Surendra son of Murat Yadav reached there carrying the lathi and rod in their hands and started filling the foundation which was digged by complainant. When the son of the complainant Shiv Shankar asked them not to do so then Dalsingar hurled the abuse and exhorted to kill him. On the exhortation of Dalsingar, Ramesh, Manoj, Ramroop and Surendra started beating Shiv Shankar son of complainant with lathi, rod, kicks and punches. When wife of complainant Amaravati, brother of complainant Raja Ram and neice Neera reached there to save Shiv Shankar then accused/respondents also beaten them.
The Trial Court has returned the verdict of acquittal on the ground that the charge under Section 308 IPC is not proved against the accused/respondents on the ground that the doctor has opined that the injuries sustained by the injured persons are not dangerous to life and for Section 506 IPC the Trial Court has given the reason that the complainant Sita Ram Yadav - PW1, Raja Ram Singh Yadav - PW2, Shiv Shankar Yadav - PW3 has not stated specifically that which type of threat to kill was given by the accused/respondents.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial Court is not a possible or a plausible view. There is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment.
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) 1 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 15 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2003.
After perusal of the impugned judgment it reveals 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 :- 24.8.2018 VG..