Court No. - 26
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4045 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Salim And Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Heard learned AGA perused the entire record.
Present State appeal along with leave application has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgement and order dated 23.01.2009 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, District Azamgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 174 of 1997 under Sections 323/34, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act, whereby accused-respondents were acquitted.
Submission of learned AGA is that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents but the trial court on insufficient ground acquitted them. Referring to the entire evidence in the impugned judgment and order it was also argued that prosecution case is also supported by medical evidence. Findings recorded by trial court in the impugned judgment and order are perverse. Thus, prayer was made to grant leave to appeal.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned AGA.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, accused respondents were facing trial for the offence under Sections 323/34, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act. Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order was of the view that offence under Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act is not proved. The prosecution case is not supported by medical evidence. Learned trial court was also of the view that there is major contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses on material point. If the findings recorded by the trial court are minutely analyzed in light of submission raised by learned AGA, no illegality or infirmity is found. The prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
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."
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal.
Thus, the application for leave to appeal is hereby rejected.
Since, leave to appeal application has been rejected, hence, the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 A.N. Mishra