Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2899 of 2001
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Shyodan Singh & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- R.P.Dubey/G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA, appearing for the State on application seeking leave to appeal against judgment and order dated 28.03.2001 passed by Additional Session Judge, Aligarh by means of which accused/respondents have been acquitted of the offence under sections 148/452/323 IPC read with section 149 IPC, section 324 read with section 149 IPC and sections 395/397 IPC.
The appeal arises or is culmination to the incident said to have been taken place on 29.04.1991 in which all the accused/respondent have been nominated as an accused, number of other persons like Raghuvar Dayal, Manik Chand, Shiv Charan were named in the F.I.R, however, they were no examined or produced by the prosecution.
Having heard Sri. Mishra, learned A.G.A appearing for the State and keeping in view the argument as has been raised at Bar of this Court. The court proceed to examine the findings as has been recorded by the court concerned. Having perused the findings it cannot be said that the findings are illegal or perverse or not based evidence on record. The relevant findings are extracted herein below.
,& vfHk;kstu dh rjQ ls tks ifjokn i= U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky fd;k gS ml ij ntZ jftLVj djus dk vkns'k ts0 ,e0& izFke U;k;ky; esa ihBklhu vf/kdkjh us fnukad 7-4-91 dks fd;kA oknh egs'k pUnz Hkkj}kt ds ifjokn i= ds izFke i`"B ij tks gLrk{kj cus gS ml ij Hkh igys fnukad 7-4-11 dh frfFk vafdr Fkh ftlds vad ^^4^^ esa vksoj&jkbfVaXk djds ^^5^^ cuk;k gqvk izrhr gksrk gSA ifjokn i= es lcls uhps dh rjQ fn0& 7-5-91 dh frfFk vafdr gSA 7-5-91 dks nkf[ky gq, ifjokn i= ij ihBklhu vf/kdkjh }kjk ntZ jftLVj fd;s tkus dk vkns'k 7-4-91 dks ugha gks ldrk FkkA ifjokn i= ij ntZ jftLVj gksus ds vkns'k fnukad &7-4-91 dks gS rFkk ifjokn ds vanj ?kVuk 19-4-91 dh gksuk crk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj ;g rF; Hkh fd ifjokn dc izLrqr gqvk] bl ckjs esa lUnsg tud LFkfr mRiUu gks tkrh gSA ch& bl izdkj oknh ds c;ku ls vkbZ fHkUurk ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ ds ckjs esa oknh us U;k;ky; esa lgh c;ku ugha fn;k gSA ?kVuk dh dksbZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls ntZ ugha djkbZ x;h gSA ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd dks tks izkFkZuk i= Hkstk x;k gS mls vfHk;kstu us izekf.kr ugha djk;k gSA jftLVMZ &Mkd ls Hksts x;s izkFkZuk i= dks fl) djus gsrq vfHk;kstu us jftLVªh & Mkd ls Hksts x;s izkFkZuk i= dks fl) djus gsrq vfHk;kstu us jftLVªh dh jlhn dks U;k;ky; eas nkf[ky ugha fd;k gS ;s lHkh rF; ;g Li"V djrs gS fd vfHk;kstu dh rjQ ls dksbZ ?kVuk dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ ugha djkbZ xbZA lh& oknh egs'k pUnz us izfrijh{kk ds c;ku esa ;g Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd ;g ?kVuk muds lkeus ?kfVr ugha gqbZA vr% Li"V gS fd oknh ?kVuk dk izR;{k n'khZ xokg ugha gS vr% ?kVuk ds ckjs esa oknh dk c;ku egRoghu gks tkrk gSA Mh& xokg Hkkuq izdk'k us iz/kkuh ds pquko dh jaft'k vius c;ku esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA xokg lrh'k dqekj dk uke ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd dks Hksts x;s fjiksVZ esa crkSj izR;{kn'khZ xokg vafdr ugha gSa vr% izrhr gksrk gS fd buds uke dks ckn esa eqdnek cukus dh xjt ls ckn fy[kk;k x;k gS rFkk bUgas lk{; es is'k fd;k gSA U;k;ky; esa bl izdkj LIk"V gksrk gS fd vfHk;kstu us ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd ds izkFkZuk i= esa ftu xokgksa dks crkSj xokg uketn fd;k Fkk] muesa ls ?kVuk ds pqVfgy Jherh lR;orh dks NksM+dj fdlh vU; lk{kh dks 'kiFk ij ijhf{kr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bZ& ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd ds izkFkZuk i= esa Hkh tgka eqyfteku ds gfFk;kj dk rF; Vkbi fd;k gqvk gS] ogha gkFk ls 'kCn ^^o pkdw vfuy ds gkFk^^ esa c<k;k x;k gSA blls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd ifjokn i= esa pkdw ls ekj ihV djus dk rF; ckn esa c<k;k x;k gSA vfHk;kstu ds vuqlkj ;g ifjokn i= fnukad& 7- 5-91 dks nkf[ky fd;k x;kA fnukad &7-5-91 ds igys ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd dks tks fjiksVZ Hkstk tkuk crk;k x;k gS] mlesa Hkh vfuy ds gkFk esa pkdw gksus dh ckr ckn esa c<+k;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd eqyfteku vfuy ds gkFk esa pkdw gksus dh ckr batjh fjiksVZ vk/kkj ij odhy ls jk; e'kfojk ds ckn esa c<k+;k x;k gSA ,Q& Mk0 jktho vxzoky us U;k;ky; esa lgh c;ku ugha fn;k gSa rFkk c;ku ds lEcU/k esa mUgksus lPpkbZ fNikus dh ps"Vk dh gSA Mk0 jktho vxzoky us fnukad&27-4-2000 dks Hkh c;ku i<+us ds mijkUr gh vius gLrk{kj fd;s FksA MkDVj us fnukad 13-3-2001 c;ku esa o 26-4-2000 dks mUgksus c;ku esa gLrk{kj i<us ds ckn fd;s FksA vr% bu ifjfLFkfr;kas lansgkLin gks tkrk gSA esa Mk0 jktho vxzoky dk c;ku Lor% ,Q&1& Mk0 jktho vxzoky us batjh fjiksVZ] izn'kZ & d 1 esa Jherh lR;orh dh pksVkas dk jax D;ksa ugha fy[kk] bldk Mk0 jktho vxzoky bl vfHk;kstu dh rjQ ls dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k gSA blls izrhr gksrk gS fd pksVkas ds M;js'w ku dk rF; fNikus fd fy, tku c>dw j MkDVj us pkVkss a dk jax batjh fjiksVZ esa vafdr ugha fd;k gSA ;g ?kVuk xzke [ksMk cqtqxZ] Fkkuk& toka] ftyk vyhx<+ esa ?kfVr gqbZ gSA lk{; esa ;g Li"V :i ls vk;k gS fd toka esa Hkh izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz gSA Jherh lR;orh dk MkDVjh ijh{k.k ih0 ,p0 lh0 toka ij D;kas vfHk;kstu us dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k gSA ugha djk;k x;k ] bldk And thus the Court has concluded herein as under.
th& mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr x.k ds fo:) ifjokn ds vk/kkj ij ;g eqdnek ifjoknh egs'k pUnz Hkkj}kt us tks pyk;k gS og ek= fn0 27-4-91 dh jktsUnz flag }kjk fy[kkbZ xbZ fjiksVZ ls {kqCn gksdj fy[kk;k x;k gSA lk{; esa ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd fn0 27-4-91 dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij iqfyl us oknh dh bZV dh HkfVV;ka vkfn rksM+ fn;k FkkA ftlls oknh dks uqdlku igaqpk FkkA ftlls ukjkt gksdj ifjoknh us ;g eqdnek pyk;k gSA ?kVuk dh iqf"V djus ds fy, vfHk;kstu us tks lk{; fn;k gS og fo'oluh; ugha ikbZ xbZ gSA vfHk;kstu dh rjQ ls ?kVuk dh dksbZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ ugha djkbZ xbZ gSA ofj"B iqfyl v/kh{kd dks tks izkFkZuki= Hkstk x;k gS og Hkh vfHk;kstu dh rjQ ls izekf.kr ugha djk;k x;k gSA izkFkZuk i= jftLVj& Mkd ls Hksts tkuk crk;k x;k gS] ysfdu jftLVªh dh jlhn dks U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gSA ifjokn esa fnukad &7-5-91 dh frfFk iM+h gSA ijUrq ifjokn ntZ jftLVj fd;s tkus dk ihBklhu vf/kdkjh dk vkns'k fnukad& 7-4-91 dk gSA oknh egs'kpUnz ds tgka gLrk{kj ifjokn i= ds izFke i`"B ij gS] ogka frfFk fn0&7-4-91 fy[kh gSA mleas vksoj jkbfVax ls 7-5-91 cuk;k tkuk izrhr gksrk gSA mijksDr lHkh rF;kas ls Li"V gkrks gS fd vfHk;kts u viuk dFku Li"V djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk gS rFkk vfHk;qDr x.k vfHk;kstu ds vkjksi ls nks"k eqDr gksus ;ksX; 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 27 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 1991.
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