Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3365 of 2007
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sanjay And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned AGA appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.01.2007, passed by Additional Session Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No.2, Azamgarh, in Session Trial No. 546 of 2001, arising out of Case Crime No. 414 of 1998, under Section 498-A and 304-B, IPC, Police Station Sindhari, District Azamgarh, by means of which the present accused-respondent namely Sanjay and Surati Devi, have been acquitted of the offence under Sections 498, 304-B, IPC by giving them the benefit of doubt.
We have heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh at length and we have also perused the findings as has been recorded by the trial court. We finds that the trial court has given cogent reasons based upon which the findings have been recorded and based upon the said findings the court has returned the verdict of acquittal. No illegality or perversity has been attributed to the findings as has been recorded by the trial court while returning the verdict of acquittal. The court has clearly observed that there is a delay of almost 34 hours in lodging the first information report. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 that before lodging of the first information report they have met with his advocate and on the basis and discussion of with advocate the present first information report has been lodged. The relevant portion of the findings of the court concerned is extracted herein as under:-
^^--------------vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk cgl ds le; rdZ izLrqr djrs le; dgk x;k gS fd ?kVuk fnukad 08-06-98 fnu 12 cts dh gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fnukad 09-06-98 le; 9-30 cts lqcg 33&1@2 ?kaVs foyEc ls fopkj foe'kZ ds ckn ntZ djkbZ x;h gSA e`rdk dh e`R;q vLirky esa gqbZA iapk;r ukek 1 cts fnu mlh fnu gqvk rFkk iksLVekVZe fnukad 09-06-98 dks gqvkA ih0MCyw0&2 Jherh izHkkorh tks fd e`rdk dh ekaW gS] }kjk vius izfrijh{kk esa Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd mlds yM+ds vfuy e`rdk lquhrk NksVh Fkh vkSj vfuy ds 'kknh ds rhu o"kZ ckn lquhrk dh 'kknh gqbZ Fkh vkSj vfuy dh cM+h yM+dh 'kknh yk;d gS vkSj mldh mez 18 lky ds djhc gS] vFkkZr 304 ch0 dk vijk/k ugh curk gSA uD'kk utjh oknh dh fu'kku nsgh ij cuk;k x;k gS] tcfd mlus ?kVuk ns[kh ugha gSA mlus vius c;ku esa ?kVuk u ns[kuk Lohdkj fd;k gS ih0MCyw0&3 lkew jke }kjk vius c;ku esa Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd fjiksVZ fy[kus ls igys odhy ls feys Fks vFkZr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ odhy ls lykg e'kfojs ds ckn fy[kkbZ x;h gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dh dgkuh rFkk 'kiFk ij c;ku esa fn;s x;s dFku vkil esa fojks/kkHkklh gSaA --------------fQj dgk fd fjiksVZ esjh HkkHkh us cksy dj fy[kk;k FkkA esjh HkkHkh us vfuy cuZZoky dks fjiksVZ cksydj fy[kok;k FkkA HkkHkh us crk;k fd fjiksVZ rqEgkjh rjQ es fy[kk;h x;h gSA HkkHkh dss dgus ls nLr[kr fd;kA fQj og nj[kkLr HkkHkh us ys fy;kA vkSj mlh nj[kkLr dks ysdj vfuy cuZoky ds lkFk Fkkus ij pyh x;hA eSA Hkh Fkksu x;kA lHkh yksx lkFk gh Fkkus x;sA esjh HkkHkh us ogdkxt nhoku th dks fn;kA fjiksVZ fy[k tkus ds ckn ge yksx ?kj pys x;sA ?kVuk ds fnu gh Fkkus esa eq>dks tkudkjh gqbZ fd nj[kkLr esa HkkHkh us D;k fy[kk;k gSA jiV ntZ gksdj udy feyh FkhA mlh udy ls eq>s tkudkjh gks x;h fd HkkHkh us D;k fy[kk;k gSA eaS ?kj dk ekfyd Fkk bf,y HkkHkh us esjh rjQ ls jiV fy[kk;k eq>s lquhrk ds tyus dh lwpuk jkeQsj o eqUUkh yky us esjs ?kj ij fn;k FkkA --------------bl lk[kh us vius izfrijh{kk ds i`"B&2 ij dgk gS fd e`rdk dks ckW/kus dk ;k cso'k djus dk dksbZ fu'kku ugha ik;k x;kA --------------ih0MCyw0&1 jkeQsj ftls fd p{kqn'khZ lk{kh crk;k x;k gS mlus viuh izfrijh{kk esa i`"B 77 ij dFku fd;k gS fd tc eaS ?kVuk LFky ij igqWpk rks ogkW ij dksbZ ugha FkkA ikWp nl feuV ckn 10] 5 yksx ekSds ij vk;s muds uke eaS ugh crk ldrkA muesa lat; vfHk;qDr FkkA ca/ku yky o lqjkrh nsoh Hkh FksA eaS xkWo okyksa ds lkFk ?kj esa ?kqlk Fkk xkWo ds iz/kku ek:fr xkMh ys vk;s mlh ea lquhrk dks j[kk x;k xkM+h esda lquhrk ds lkFk iz/kku o lat; Hkh x;s FksA i`"B&9 ij dFku fd;k gS fd lquhrk dks nksuksa gkFk jLLkh ls cW/kk gqvk Fkk jLLh de dj ckW/kh x;h FkhQA tc fd ih0MCYkw04 MkDVj vkj0,e0 JhokLro }kjk viuh izfrijh{kk esa dgk x;k gS fd e`rdk dks ckW/kus dk oso'k djus dk dksbZ fu'kku ugha ik;k x;k bl izdkj ih0MCYkw01 jkeQsj Hkh vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls ,d ek= p{kqn'khZ lk{kh ds :i esa is'k fd;k x;k gS mldh lk{; esfMdy lk{; ds foijhr gS rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k lat; ca/ku yky lqjkrh nsoh dk ?kVuk LFky ij Lo;a ds igqWpus ds 5] 10 feuV ckn vkuk dgrk gSA blls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd ?kVuk LFky ij ;k xokg igys igqWpk ml le; rd dksbZ xkWo dk O;fDr rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k ?kVuk LFky ij ugha FksA bldk lk{; vkil esa fojks/kkHkklh gks tkrk gSA ih0MCYkw01 ds }kjk i`"B&4 ij ?kVuk LFky dh tks fLFkfr crkbZ x;h gS og uD'kk utjh izn'kZ d&3 ds foijhr gSA blls Hkh bldh ekSds ij mifLFkfr lansgkLin gks tkrh gSA --------------ih0MCYkw0&2 izHkkorh tks e`rdk dh ekW gS] og dsoy iapukes dh xokg gS] ih0MCYkw03 lkew jke oknh e`rdk dk pkkpk gS] ;g Hkh dsoy iapukek ds xokg gSA rhuksa gh xokg fgrc) lk{kh gS] dksbZ Lora= lk{kh is'k ugh fd;k x;k gSA Lora= lk{kh is'k u fd;s tkus dh fLFkfr esa fgrc) lk{khx.k dk lk{; dkQh lrdZrk ds lkFk ns[kus dh vko'drk gksrh gS vkSj tgkW ij fgrc) lk{khx.k ds C;kukesa esa vR;f/kd fojks/kkHkkl gks rks fgc) lk{khx.k ds lk{; ds vk/kkj ij nks"k flf) U;ks;ksfpr ugh gSA --------------ih0MCyw0&2 Jherh izHkkorh tks fd e`rdk dh ekW gS] mlsu viuh izfrijh{kk es Lohdkj fd;k gS fd esjs ikl nsk yM+dk nks yMdh thfor gS ,d yMdh ej pqdh gSA lcls cM+k yMdk vfuy dqekj gS og cky cPps okyk gS vfuy ds ,d yMdk ej pqdk gS ,d yMdh gS] yMdh ikWp rd i< dj NksM fn;k Fkk yMdh 'kknh ds yk;d gS A yMdh dh mez 18 lky ds djhc gSA vfuy dh 'kknh ds rhu lky ckn lquhrk dh 'kknh gqbZ FkhA blls ns[kk tk; rks /kkjk 304ch Hkk0na0la0 ngst gR;k dk vijk/k ugha curk gSA ngst ekWxus ds fy, izekfMr djus dks i;kZIr i=koyh ij miyC/k ugha gSA ih0MCYkw01 izHkkorh us izfr ijh{kk esa i`"B 5 ij dgk gS fd eksVjlkbZfdy o 15000@&:0 ekaxus okyh ckr igyh ckj U;k;ky; esa crk jgh gSA ih0MCYkw06 jke nkl jke us izfrijh{kk esa dgk fd iapk;rukek ds fdlh xokg us eq>s ;g ugh crk;k fd ngst ds fy, izrkfM+r fd;k x;k vkSj blds fy, tykdj ekj fn;kA blfy, bldk dksbZ bUnzkt iapk;rukek ugh fd;k vkSj u gh foospd dks crk;kA vr% ngst ekWxus dsk i;kZIr lk{; ugha izrkfMr dk lk{; gSA --------------mijksDRk foospuk ds vk/kkj ij esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWpk gwW fd vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) U;k;ky; }kjk yxk;k x;k vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk 498,] 304ch Hkk0na0la0 lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus eas iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k yxk;s x;s vkjksi lansg dk ykHk nsrs gq, nks"keqDr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** After perusal of the impugned judgment which 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:
1. 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, (20 1) 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.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 VKG