Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4179 of 2012
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sher Ali
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Shri Patanjali Mishra learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 by means of which accused respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 376/511, 506 IPC and 3(1) 12 SC/ST Act.
Learned A.G.A. 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 great length. We have also perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. Perusal of record shows that the court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded a number of categorical findings, relevant of which are being extracted herein as under:-
eSaus 'kksj fd;k rks gfjjke eqds'k vk x;s rks eqyfte eq>s NksM+dj Hkkx x;k vkSj /kedh fn;k fd rw>s o rsjs cki dks tku ls ekj nwWxkA eSaus ?kj tkdj vius firk th dks lkjh ckrs crkbZ rks esjs firk th us Fkkus ij fjiksVZ fy[kkbZA ?kVuk ds le; esjh mez 11 lky Fkh vkSj ml le; eSa Nbh d{kk esa i<+rh FkhA bl xokg us viuh ftjg fd ist&3 ij dgk gS fd ?kVuk ds igys eSa 'ksj vyh dk uke Hkh ugha tkurh FkhA tc eSa ?kVuk ds ckn ?kj igqWph rks firkth ?kj ij ugha FksA 15 feuV ckn ?kj ij vk;s FksA eSaus vius firkth ls 'ksj vyh dk uke ugha crk;k FkkA eSa rFkk esjs firkth yxHkx 8-00 cts etnwjh djus x;s FksA [ksr ls eSa o esjs firk th Ms<+ cts ?kj vk;s FksA bl xokg us viuh ftjg ds ist&4 ij dgk gS fd gfjjke o eqds'k eqyfte ds Hkkx tkus ds ckn vk;s FksA eqyfte esjs lkFk cykRdkj ugha dj ik;k FkkA ?kVuk ds le; ogka dksbZ ugha vk;k FkkA vfHk;kstu dh dgkuh ds vuqlkj fnukad 5-7-98 dks 6-00 cts lqcg xkao ds ikl csjh ds ckx ls nh?kZ'kadk ls fuo`Rr gksdj ihfM+rk lfjrk vius ?kj dks vk jgh Fkh mlh le; ckx esa vfHk;qDr 'ksjvyh us viuh dksyh ls ihfM+rk dks ifM= dj tehu ij fyVk fn;k vkSj tcjnLrh mlds lyokj ds ukM+s dks rksM fn;k rFkk ihfM+rk lfjrk ds Åij ysV x;kA ihfM+rk ml le; 11 o"kZ dh FkhA ihfM+rk lfjrk ds 'kksj ij gfjjke o eqds'k vk x;s ftudks ns[kdj vfHk;qDr ihfM+rk dks NksM+dj Hkkx x;kA++++++++++++++++++++++ ihfM+rk lfjrk ds crkus ij mlds firk gjiky us Fkkus ij nks fnu foyEc ls fjiksVZ fy[kkbZ gSA ih- MCyw&2 oknh gjiky us ,Q0vkbZvkj0 ihfM+rk lfjrk ds crkus ds vk/kkj ij fy[kkbZ gS D;ksafd ih0MCYwk&2 gjiky us ?kVuk viuh vkW[kksa ls ugh ns[kh gSA ?kVuk ns[kus okys xokg gfjjke o eqds'k Fks ftUgs oknh i{k us crkSj xokg U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugh fd;k gS] D;ksafd ih0MCYkw&1 ds :i esa izLrqr ihfM+rk lfjrk us viuh ftjg esa dgk gS fd tc xokgku gfjjke rFkk eqds'k ?kVuk LFky ij vk;s rks ml le; rd eqyfte Hkkx pqdk FkkA dgus dk rkRi;Z gS fd ihfM+rk lfjrk ds vuqlkj dfFkr xokgku gfjjke o eqds'k us ?kVuk viuh vkW[kksa ls ugh ns[kh blh dkj.k oknhi{k us gfjjke rFkk eqds'k dks crkSj xokg izLrqr ugh fd;k gSA eq[; fopkj.kh; fcUnq gS fd D;k 'ksj vyh vfHk;qDr us ihfM+rk lfjrk ds lkFk cykRdkj dk iz;kl fd;k gSA ihfM+rk us vius eq[; c;ku esa vfHk;kstu dgkuh dk leFkZu fd;k gS ysfdu ftjg ds le; ihfM+rk lfjrk us eq[; c;ku ds foijhr ckrsa dgh gSA ihfM+rk lfjrk dk dguk gS fd og vfHk;qDr dks tkurh igpkurh ugh FkhA dgus dk rkRi;Z gS fd ftl vfHk;qDr us mlds lkFk cykRdkj djus dk iz;kl fd;k og dkSu O;fDr Fkk] ds lEcU/k esa ihfM+rk lfjrk dks igys ls tkudkjh ugh Fkh fQj mlus vius firk dks vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh dk uke dSls crk;k rFkk mlds firk gjiky us Fkkus ij nks fnu foyECk ls 'ksj vyh ds fo:) uketn ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dSls ntZ djkbZ] bldk dksbZ Li"V mRrj vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vxj xokgku gfjjke rFkk eqds'k us viuh vkW[kksa ls vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh dks ekSds ls Hkkxrs gq, ns[kk Fkk rks ;g ckr dgh tk ldrh Fkh fd xokg gfjjke rFkk eqds'k us oknh i{k dks vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh dk uke crk;k Fkk ysfdu Lo;a ihfM+rk lfjrk dgrh gS fd dfFkr xokgku gfjjke rFkk eqds'k us viuh vkW[kksa ls ?kVuk ugha ns[kk Fkk vkSj uk gh vfHk;qDr dks Hkkxrs gq, ns[kk FkkA ,slh fLFkfr esa gfjjke rFkk eqds'k dks Hkh ugha irk Fkk fd fdl vfHk;qDr us ihfM+rk lfjrk ds lkFk cykRdkj djus dk iz;kl fd;k FkkA iqfyl dks pkfg;s Fkk fd vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh dh dk;Zokgh f'kuk[r ihfM+rk lfjrk ls djkrs ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk fd vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh us ?kVuk ds le; ,oa LFkku ij ihfM+rk lfjrk ds lkFk cykRdkj djus dk iz;kl fd;k FkkA tc ihfM+rk lfjrk vfHk;qDRk 'ksj vyh dks ?kVuk ds le; tkurh igpkurh ugh Fkh rks ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDr dh dk;Zokgh f'kuk[r djk;k tkuk vko';d Fkk ftlls Li"V gks tkrk fd D;k vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh us ihfM+rk lfjrk ds lkFk cykRdkj djus dk iz;kl fd;k FkkA vfHk;kstu dks ;g Li"V djuk pkfg;s Fkk fd vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh dk uke fdl rjg ls izdk'k esa vk;k vkSj og dSls ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 esa ukfer gqvk] og dkSu O;fDr Fkk ftlus crkSj vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh dk uke oknh i{k dks ;k iqfyl dks crk;k FkkA ?kVuk dh dsoy ,d p'enhn xokg Lo;a ihfM+rk lfjrk gSA ihfM+rk lfjrk ds lEiw.kZ c;ku dks ns[kk tk, rks mlls vfHk;qDr ds fo:) lUnsg jfgr <ax ls ;g Li"V ugh gksrk fd ?kVuk okys fnu] le; ,oa LFkku ij blh vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh us ihfM+rk lfjrk ds lkFk cykRdkj djus dk iz;kl fd;k FkkA ih0MCYkw&2 oknh gjiky us lquh lqukbZ ckrksa ds vk/kkj ij ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fy[kkbZ gS ftldk dksbZ cgqr vf/kd egRo ugha gSA ih0MCYkw&2 oknh gjiky us ih0MCyw&1 ihfM+rk lfjrk ds crkus ds vk/kkj ij ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 fy[kkbZ gSA og Lo;a vkus eq[; c;ku o ftjg esa vfHk;qDr 'ksj vyh] ds lEcU/k esa vLi"V c;ku izLrqr fd;s gSaA ih0MCyw&3 yxk;r ih0MCyw&5 iqfyl ds deZpkjh gS ftUgksus iqfyl izi=ksa dks izekf.kr fd;k gSA 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 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.
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.
No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.
Let 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 :- 24.8.2018/SP