Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3240 of 2011 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Satpal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2011 by means of which the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the offences under sections 147, 498-A, 304-B, 201, 302/149 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 953 of 2003.
Perusal of the record shows that the deceased was died within 7 years and 14 days of the marriage and there are two children born by her marriage. We have perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned and we have also heard learned A.G.A. at great length. The record shows that the deceased body was found near the railway track and she has received as many as crushed injuries. It has not been disputed that railway track is located about 1.1/2 kilometre from the residence. Findings of the court concerned are being extracted herein below:-
“vfHk;kstu dk ;g dFku Hkh fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDrksa us e`rdk dks ekj dj mlds 'ko dks jsyos ykbZu ij ys tk dj ysVk fn;k FkkA fuf'pr :i ls ftl LFkku ij e`rdk dk 'ko feyk og LFkku vfHk;qDrksa ds ?kj ls ,d Ms<+ fdyksehVj nwjh ij gSA ;fn vfHk;qDr x.k ?kj ij e`rdk dh gR;k djrs rc mldk 'ko Ms<+ fdyksehVj rd ys tk dj jsyos ykbZu ij Qsdus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugh gSA D;ksfd bl Ms<+ fdyksehVj dh ;k=k esa mUgsa dksbZ igpku Hkh ldrk FkkA foospuk ds nkSjku foospd dks bl vk'k; dh dksbZ lk{; ugha feyh gS fd ?kj ij e`rdk dh e`R;q gqbZ gksA tks Hkh lk{; feyh gS og jsyos ykbZu o iVjh ij feyh gSA ogh ij e`rdk dk /kM iVjh ls Ms<+ ehVj nwj rFkk nkfguk gkFk dksguh ls eqMk gqvk flj iVjh ds fdukjs 6 bWp dh nwjh ij iMk gqvk FkkA iapk;rukek izn'kZ d 7 esa bu rF;ksa dk Li"V mYys[k gSA iVjh fd fupys fgLls esa [kwu yxk feyk gSA ;fn e`rdk dh gR;k vU;= djds og 'ko Qsadk x;k gksrk rks iVjh ds o mlds uhps ds fgLls ij [kwu ugh feyrkA e`rdk ds 'ko dk iapk;rukek izn'kZ d 7 dks vfHk;kstu lk{kh la[;k 5 mi fujh{kd vt; iky flag us viuh lk{; }kjk izekf.kr fd;k gSA mUgksuas viuh lk{; ds i`"B 5 ij Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd jsyos ykbZu ij [kwu iMk FkkA iVjh ds fupys fgLLks esa Hkh [kwu yxk FkkA [kwu vkywn feV~Vh iVjh ds uhps ls yh FkhA foospukf/kdkjh iqfyl mik/kh{kd jkeewjr flag vfHk;kstu lk{kh la0 5 ds :i esa lk{; esa ijhf{kr gq, gSA mUgksus lk{; ds i`"B 2 ij Lohdkj fd;k gS fd jsyos iVjh ds mij uhps [kwu yxk FkkA bl izdkj vfHk;kstu dk ;g dFku izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDrksa us e`rdk dh ?kj esa gR;k dj yk'k dks jsyos ykbZu ij Qsad fn;k gksA ;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[;uh; gS fd ftl dFku dks lk{kh x.k us viuh lk{; esa fd;k gS muesa ls dkQh dFkuksa dks u rks mUgksus izn'kZ d 1 izFke lwpuk eas vafdr djk;k gS vkSj u gh foospd dks /kkjk 161 n0 iz0 l0 ds dFkuksa es gh crk;k gSA nksuksa lk{khx.k ;g Lohdkj djrs gS fd e`rdk ds nks iq= iSnk gq, ftuesa ls igys dh tUe frfFk 8-12-2000 rFkk nwljs dh tUefrfFk 6-4-2002 gSA bu foxr yxHkx 12&13 o"kZ dh vof/k esa vfHk;kstu ds bu nksuksa lk{kh x.k us dHkh Hkh e`rdk ds bu nksuksa iq=ksa dh [kkst [kcj ugha yh vkSj u gh muls feyus x;s vkSj u gh e`rdk ds nksuksa iq=ksa dk ikyu iks"k.k esa dksbZ lg;ksx fd;k e`rdk ds nksuksa iq= fuf'pr :i ls vfHk;qDrks ds ifjokj esa jg dj ikyu iks"k.k ik jgs gSA blls vfHk;kstu dk ;g dFku lafnX/k gks tkrk gS fd e`rdk dks 20000 :i;s udn o eksVj lkbZfdy dh ekax djrs gq, izrkfMr dj mldh gR;k dj nh x;h gSA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprh gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k ls ijhf{kr lk{kh x.k dh lk{; ls yslek= Hkh ;g izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS fd Jherh ehuk dh e`R;q ds Bhd igys mls mlds ifr] ifr ds fj'rsnkjksa }kjk izrkfMr fd;k x;k rFkk ;g izrkM+uk ngst dh ekWx vFkok mlds lEcU/k esa gqbZA mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij /kkjk 304&ch Hkk0 na0 la0 ds fy;s mijksDr of.kZr pkjksa 'krksZ esa ls Øe la[;k &1 ij of.kZr 'krZ ds vykok vU; dksbZ Hkh 'krZ izekf.kr ugha gksrh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrx.k ij /kkjk 304 ch Hkk0 n0 la0 dk vijk/k izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA /kkjk 498 , Hkk0 na0 la0 ,oe~ /kkjk 3 RkFkk 4 ngst izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e dk vijk/k Hkh mijksDr foospuk ds izdk'k eas izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA D;ksfd Åij of.kZr pkj 'krksaZ esa ls Øe la[;k & 3 ,oe~ 4 ij vafdr 'krZ /kkjk 498 , Hkk0 na0 la0 ,oe~ /kkjk 3 rFkk 4 izfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds vijk/k ds rRo gSA /kkjk 304 ch Hkk0 n0 la0 dk vijk/k izekf.kr u gksus dh n'kk esa vfHk;qDrksa ds fo:) /kkjk 113 ch Hkkjrh; lk{; vf/kfu;e ds vUrZxr ;g mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tk;sxh fd Jherh ehuk dh e`R;q ngst gR;k Fkh rFkk ;g gR;k mlds ifr] ifr ds fj'rsnkjksa }kjk dkfjr dh x;h gksA tgka vfHk;kstu i{k ls ijhf{kr lk{khx.k dh lk{; ls vfHk;kstu dFkkud ysl ek= Hkh izekf.kr ugha gksrk gSA ogh vfHk;qDrx.k dh rjQ ls cpko lk{; esa ijhf{kr lk{kh x.k gksjh yky vfHk;qDr lriky ds ekek] vfHk;qDr lriky flag ,oe~ 'kknh ds iafMr txnh'k pUnz 'kekZ dh lk{; ls vfHk;qDr x.k ds bl dFku dk leFkZu gksrk gS fd ifjokj ls vyx jgus ds fcUnq ij lEHkor% ehuk ?kj ls fudy dj x;h rFkk jsy ls dVdj mldh e`R;q gks x;hA ehuk dh dfFkr gR;k dh ?kVuk dk u rks dksbZ izR;{kn'khZ lk{kh gS vkSj u gh ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa /kkjk 302@149] 201 ,oe~ /kkjk 147 Hkk0 na0 la0 ds vijk/k Hkh vfHk;qDrksa ds fo:) ysl ek= izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA”
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 .
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court below is not possible and plausible thus the judgment of the court below cannot be interfered with by this Court only on account of the fact that another view is possible.
Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the court below and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by trial court is a perverse view.
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. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Lower court record be sent back to the court concerned. Order Date :- 23.8.2018 Swati