Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2681 of 2001
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Shyam Babu Etawah & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Dubey
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA, appearing for the State on application seeking leave to appeal against judgment and order dated 19.04.2001 passed by Special Judge/Dasyu Prabhavit Chetra Adhiniyam Etawah, by means of which accused/respondents have been acquitted of the offence under sections 395/397/427/506/153-Ka IPC.
Heard Sri O.P. Mishra, Advocate, and keeping in view the contention as has been raised by the learned A.G.A at Bar of this Court. The court has perused the findings and conclusion as has been recorded by the court concerned. The perusal of the findings shows that the court has given the cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion and thus it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at illegal or perverse or not based on evidence on record. The relevant conclusion extracted herein as under: -
,& vfHk;kstu i{k ds lk{; esa ?kVuk ds fnu 'kke 4 cts deh'ku dk vkuk vkSj deh'ku dh dk;Zokgh djuk Lohdkj gS ysfdu oknh us ;g deh'ku fjiksVZ nkf[ky ugh dh ftlls VwVh gq;h nhokj dh fLFkfr D;k Fkh ] ;g nhokj fdruh VwVh Fkh ;g fl) gksrk vkSj oknh dk dFku Hkh lefFkZr gksrk ysfdu oknh us ;g vfHkys[k lk{; esa D;kas izLrqr ugh fd;k bldk dkj.k lca /k oknh gh crk ldrk gS vkSj blds vHkko eas vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk oknh dh nhokj o dejs dk rkyk rksM+ dj tcjnLrh dejs esa batu dk iEi o vU; vkStkj rFkk nhokj dh bZVs ywV ys tkus dh ?kVuk lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gksrh gSA ch& lk{; ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd xkao esa gfjtu o lo.kZ dk fookn igys ls Fkk vkSj rhuksa lk{khx.k dh lk{; esa ijLij vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ rF;kas ij fojks/kkHkkl gSA bl okn esa deh'ku fjiksVZ vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ lk{; gS ftlls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd deh'ku ds le; fookfnr Hkwfe dh pgj nhokjh rkth VwVh gq;h ik;h x;h ;k ugh ysfdu bl rF; dks oknh us izkjEHk ls gh fNik;k gS blfy;s ,sls vHkko ;qDr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk ?kVuk ds le; oknh ds fookfnr pd ij fLFkr ckgj nhokjks dk tcjnLrh fxjk dj mldh bZVs vkSj dejs dk rkyk rksM dj mlesa ls batu dk iEi] uksfty rFkk vU; vkStkj ywV dj ys tkus dh ?kVuk lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gksrh gSA vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls oknh }kjk nk;j okn la[;k 853@95 pUnz izrki ik.Ms cuke mRrj izns'k jkT; vkfn ds okn i= dh lR; izfrfyfi izLrqr dh gS ftlds /kkjk&4 o 5 esa ;g mYys[ gS fd fnukad 18-12-95 dks 'kke pkj cts oknh dks ,dk,d izfroknh la[;k&1 ds jktLo foHkkx ds deZpkjh] dkuwuxks] o ys[kiky us vkj ;g crk;k fd izfroknh uEcj&2 us mudks ;g vkns'k fn;k gS fd oknh ds V;wc oSy ds ?ksjk ds if'peh tqt Hkkx dks fxjk dj lery djus dk funsZ'k fn;k gS rFkk fuekZ.k fxjkus dk vkns'k fn;k gS vkSj /kkjk&5 esa ;g mYys[k gS fd izfroknh uEcj&1 ds deZpkjh;ksa us ;g crk;k gS fd izfroknh uEcj&2 ds vkns'kkuqlkj fookfnr vkjkth esa dksbZ fuekZ.k dks nks fnu ds vUnj /oLr djds lery djuk mudh etcwjh gSA vfHk;kstu lk{kh &2 xq: izlkn vkSj lk{kh &3 lq/khj nksuksa dk lk{; gS fd fookfnr /ksjs ds if'pe nhokj dk 30&35 fQV yEck va'k VwVk Fkk ,slh ifjfLFkr esa mijksDr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij ;g iz'u mRiUu gksrk gS fd fookfnr nhokj iz'kklfud vf/kdkfj;kas us /oLr djk;h ;k vfHk;qDrx.k us /oLr dh lk{; esa ;g Hkh vk;k gS fd ?kVuk ds le; gfjtu cLrh ds 200&250 O;fDr ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkr Fks ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrx.k } kjk gh oknh dh pkgj nhokjh fxjkbZ x;h ;g rF; lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugh gksrk gSa ;gkaa ij fopkj ;ksX; ckr ;g gS fd oknh us fnukad 19-12-95 dks gh okn izLrqr fd;k tc fd eq[; ijh{kk esa ;g dgk gS fd mlus ?kVuk ds ,d fnu igys okn izLrqr fd;k tc fd ?kVuk ds fnu fnukad 19-12-95 dks gh okn izLrqr djuk fl) gksrk gS vkSj mlds ,d fnu igys iz'kklfud vf/kdkfj;kas }kjk ckgj nhokjh ds if'peh dqN va'k dks fxjk dj lery djus dk funsZ'k oknh dks nsuk vkSj dguk fd nks fnu ds vUnj fookfnr vkjth ij [kM+s fuek.kZ dks /oLr djds lery djuk mudh etcwjh gS] fl) gS bl ckr dks fNikus ds fy;s oknh us Lo;a vius okn ds okn i= dh udy vkSj deh'ku fjiksVZ dh udy nkf[ky ugh dh gS blls Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk oknh dh nhokj fxjk dj mldh bZVs mBk ys tkus dk rF; lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gksrk gSA lh& /kkjk 153 d Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds vkjksi ij oknh vfHk;kstu lk{kh& 1 pUnz izrki ikUMs dk lk{; gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ?kVuk ds le; gfjtu ,drk ftUnkckn ds ukjs yxk jgs Fks blds foijhr vfHk;kstu lk{kh&2 xq: izlkn dk lk{; gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k t; Hkhe dk ukjk yxk jgs FksA vfHk;kstu lk{kh&3 lq/khj dqekj dk bl rF; ij lk{; ekSu gS bl lEcU/k esa lk{kh lq/khj dqekj us dksbZ ckr ugha dgh gS bl fojks/kkHkkl esa /kkjk 153 Hk0 na0 la0 dk vkjksi Hkh lUnsg ls ijs fl) ugha gksrk gS rFkk ;g fojks/kkHkkl Hkh lEiw.kZ ?kVuk esa lUnsg mRiUu djrk gS QyLo:i vfHk;qDrx.k ';ke ckcw] egs'k ckcw] txnh'k] jke iky] jkenhu ,oa jktkjke lUnsg dk ykHk ikdj nks"k eqDr gksus ds ik= gks tkrs 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 moreso in view of the fact that more than 22 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 1995.
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 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 :- 23.8.2018/Vikram