Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2318 of 2012
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Sarvendra & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.03.2012 by means of which the accused respondents Sarvendra and Mintu have been acquitted of the offences under Section 302/34 of IPC and accused-respondent Mintu has been acquitted of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
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.
We have heard learned AGA at length, we have also perused the findings as has been recorded by the court concerned. The perusal of the record shows that the Trial Court has very seriously in a very harsh language castigated the conduct of the investigating officer. In this regard, the court has observed herein as under:-
xokg dk ftjg esa dguk gS fd cjkenxh ds le; xokgkas us vkilh tkekryk'kh ugha yhA daqMy fdrus cts cjken gq,] ;g /;ku ughaaA eqfYte ds ?kj fdrus cts igaqps] ;g Hkh /;ku ughaA eqfYte ds ?kj dh ryk'kh ds le; vklikl dk dksbZ xokg ugha fy;kA e.Mh lfefr fdrus cts igaqps] ;g Hkh /;ku ughaA e.Mh lfefr ij lkeku fdrus cts cjken gqvk ;g Hkh /;ku ugha gSA eqfYte us dejs dk njoktk viuh tsc esa j[kh pkch ls [kksyk Fkk vkSj fQj cUn djds pkch viuh tsc esa j[k yhA rkyk fdl esd dk Fkk] ;g /;ku ugha gSA mldh dksbZ gqfy;k lh0Mh0 eas vafdr ugha dhA eqfYte cjkcj mudh vfHkj{kk eas jgk fdUrq Fkkus ij dksbZ pkch cjken ugha gqbZA ;g Hkh bruk egRoiw.kZ fojks/kkHkkl gS ftlls vfHk;qDr ds dejs ls eky eqdnekrh cjken gksus dh ?kVuk /okLr gks tkrh gSA xokg dgrk gS fd oknh us viuh fjiksVZ eas ;g ugha fy[kk;k fd eerk fnukad 11-03-1999 dks lk;adky 4%00 cts V~;w'ku i<+us tkrs le; D;k diM+s ifgudj xbZ Fkh vkSj D;k tscj ifgus FkhA oknh us vius c;ku eas Hkh ,lks dkbZs mYys[k bl lk{kh dks ugha fd;kA blfy, bl lk{kh dk c;ku fo'oluh; ugha jg tkrk gSA bl ekeys dks lcls vf/kd {kfr Fkkuk fd'kuh iqfyl us gh igaqpkbZ gSA dfFkr :i ls cjken daqMy] ?kM+h rFkk og csx xk;c dj fn;k x;k] ftleas ls e`rd ds uke dh ekdZ'khV vkSj vU; yM+fd;kas dh ekdZ'khV feyh FkhA eky ds lEcU/k esa ckj&ckj Fkkuk fd'kuh dks ekSds fn;s x;s] psrkouh nh xbZA fnukad 06-02-2012 dks Fkkuk/;{k fd'kuh rFkk iSjksdkj fd'kuh us ;g gh fy[kdj fn;k fd mijksDr eky dgha ij Hkh miyC/k ugha gSA fnukad 09-02-2012 vkSj 13-02-2012 dks Hkh ;gh ckr fy[kdj nh xbZ fd pktZ eas mijkDrs eky eky[kkuk ekgs fjZj dks ugha feyk gS vFkkZr~ xk;c gSA ;fn og csx U;k;ky; esa is'k gksrk ftleas eerk ds uke dh ekdZ'khV Fkh rks bl ekeys dh ,slh n'kk u gksrhA brus xEHkhj vkjksi esa iqfyl us rRijrkiwoZd iSjksdkj ugha dhA blhfy, vfHk;qdr ds fo:) vkjksi lkfcr ugha gqvk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k jk/kkd`".k rFkk d`".keqjkjh dks /kkjk&302@34] 201 Hkk0na0la0 ds vkjksikas ls nk"keqs Dr fd;k tkrk 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 record be sent back to the court concerned.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Ram Chander