Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2696 of 2001
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sijjan & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Shri Vishnu Pandey, Shri Amarnath Bhargawa and Shri Prashant Shukla Advocates have filed their appearance on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. An affidavit has also been filed in which it has been mentioned in para 4 that respondent no.3 Raghunath s/o late Shri Jagdish Prasad had expired on 5.1.2015 and copy of the death certificate has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the said affidavit.
Heard Shri Patanjali Mishra learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.4.2001 by means of which accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 302/120B read with Section 34 IPC. We have also heard Shri Shri Vishnu Pandey, Shri Amarnath Bhargawa and Shri Prashant Shukla learned counsel for the accused respondent nos.1 and 2.
Keeping in view the contentions as have been raised at bar of this Court and the findings as recorded by the court concerned, the Court proceeds to hear the case on its own merits. The record shows that incident is of the year 1993 and appeal itself is pending since 2001. Lower court record has also been received.
The court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded categorical findings, relevant of which are being extracted herein as under:-
mDr leLr fo'ys"k.k ls vfHk;qDr flTtu dh ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkfr lUnsg ls ;s fl) ugha ekuh tk ldrhA vkSj lUnsg ls ijs miyC/k lk{; ls ;g fl) ugha gksrk fd vfHk;qDr flTtu us d`".kk izlkn dks ?kVuk ds fnu 'kjkc ihus ds fy;s nh Fkh] vFkok 'kjkc esa tgj feyk;k Fkk] vFkok tgj feykus dk "kM;a= fd;k FkkA tgkW rd fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk dh fjiksVZ dk iz'u gS] mDr fjiksVZ izn'kZ d&4 esa ,Fkkby vYdksgy fo"k dk mYys[k gSA esfMdy fof/k 'kkL= esa vYdksgy ls lEcfU/kr v/;k; esa ;g of.kZr gS fd lHkh 'kjkc&,FkbZy vYdksgy ls cuk;h tkrh gS vkSj ,Fkkby vYdksgy ls cuh 'kjkc esa rHkh fo"k dk vlj gks ldrk gS] tc fd mDr 'kjkc vf/kd ek=k esa yh tk;A vFkkZr 150 fe-yh- ls 250 feyh- iw.kZ 'kq) vYdksgy fdlh O;fDr ds fy;s mldh lgu 'kfDr ds vuqlkj fo"k dk izHkko iSnk djds ?kkrd gks ldrk gSA ;Fkkby vYdksgy vius esa vU; ek=k esa fo"kSyk inkFkZ ugha gs] tc fd tc fd feFkkby vYdksgy fo'kSyk inkFkZ gksrk gSA fof/k foKku iz;ksx 'kkyk dh vk[;k esa ,Fkkby vYdksgy fo"k ls lEcfU/kr gksuk crk;k x;k gSA blls ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd ,FkkbZy vYdksgy dh vf/kd ek=k ls d`".kk izlkn dh e`R;q gq;hA fof/k foKku iz;ksx 'kkyk dh fjiksVZ esa feFkkby vYdksgy ;k vU; dksbZ nwljk fo'kSyk inkFkZ feyk gksuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA mijksDr lHkh dkj.kksa ls vfHk;kstu i{k ;g lUnsg ls ijs fl) djus esa lQy ugha gS fd dfFkr fnukad] LFkku o le; ij d`".kk izlkn dks rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k jkepUn ,oa j?kqukFk ,oa flTtu esa ls fdlh us ihus ds fy;s 'kjkc nh Fkh ;k mDr rhuksa vfHk;qDrksa esa ls fdlh us mlds 'kjkc esa tgj feyk;k Fkk ;k rhuksa vfHk;qDrksa esa lsa fdlh us mls tgjhyk 'kjkc nsus dk "kM;U= fd;k FkkA mDr dkj.kksa ls rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k dks izLrqr izdkj.k esa lUnsg dk ykHk nsdj nks"k eqDr ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA 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) 1 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 :- 21.8.2018 SP