Court No. - 10
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2518 of 2010 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Triloki & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- GA
Hon'ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J. (Order on Criminal Misc. Application)
Heard learned AGA and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal.
This application for leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 05.11.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.3, District Bijnore in S.T. No.216 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime No.169A of 2002, under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC, Police Station Mandawar, District Bijnore by which the respondents-accused have been acquitted by the trial court.
Facts giving rise to this application for leave to appeal, in brief, are that complainant Kehar Singh submitted a written report in police station concerned on 16.08.2002 stating therein that accused-respondents are residents of the same village. Altercations took place between the wife of complainant and wife of accused-Ashok, with regard to taking water from government hand-pump on 15.08.2002, due to which accused persons were having enmity. Accused persons came to the house of complainant on 15.08.2002 at about 07.30 and started abusing the complainant. When complainant forbade, they started to attack him by knife and when Tara Singh came there for saving the complainant, he was also beaten by LATHI. Hearing alarm of complainant, Amar Singh, Mangu etc. came there and saved the complainant.
On the basis of aforesaid written report of the complainant, Case Crime No.169A of 2002, under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC was registered. The case was investigated by Sub Inspector, R.K. Trivedi. After recording statement of witnesses and completing the investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC was submitted against the accused-persons.
Charges were framed by trial court against accused-
persons under Sections 323, 324, 504 IPC and accused denied from all the charges and claimed for trial. P.W.1 Kehar Singh (complainant), P.W. 2 Tara Singh (injured), P.W. 3 Dr. A.K. Gupta, P.W. 4 R.K. Trivedi (Investigating Officer) and P.W. 5 Mangu Singh were examined before the trial court.
Statement of accused-persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. No witness was examined by accused-persons in their defence.
After giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, judgement and order dated 05.11.2009 has been passed by the learned trial court, by which accused-persons have been acquitted from the charges levelled against them.
Being aggrieved from the aforesaid judgement and order dated 05.11.2009, this application for leave to appeal alongwith Government Appeal has been filed on behalf of the State.
Learned AGA submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to bring home the charges levelled against the respondents-accused. Learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record. It is further submitted that findings recorded by learned trial court are perverse and illegal. Hence, application for leave to appeal should be allowed.
It is born out from the record that there is a cross case registered against the complainant side, on the basis of written report submitted on behalf of accused side. The present case has been registered on 18.08.2002 and the cross case against complainant side had been registered on 16.08.2002. In such a situation, heavy burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused-persons, beyond reasonable doubt. Findings have been recorded by the trial court that occurrence is said to have taken place on 15.08.2002 and its F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of three days on 18.08.2002 and explanation submitted by the prosecution side regarding the delay in lodging the F.I.R., is not satisfactory, rather F.I.R. has been lodged after consultation. Further, findings have been recorded that material contradictions have been appeared in the ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. Further, findings have been recorded that version of PW-3 is exaggerated and he is an interested witness to complainant. After scrutinizing the evidence available on record, further findings have been recorded by the trial court that complainant side is aggressor. Final finding has been recorded by the trial court that evidence of prosecution witnesses, does not inspire confidence and prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused-persons, beyond reasonable doubt.
In State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu reported in 2016 (2) SC.C.Cr.R. 943, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, the view favourable to the accused should be adopted. The relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-
"13. The burden of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and it is also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted."
Considering the arguments advanced by learned AGA, evidence available on record and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and perverse, rather it is well discussed and based on sound reasoning. So, I am of the view that no interference is called for. This application for leave to appeal is devoid of any merit and it is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, application for leave to appeal is rejected.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 atul
Court No. - 10
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2518 of 2010 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Triloki & Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- GA
Hon'ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J. (Order on Memo of Appeal)
Since the application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the memorandum of appeal also does not survive and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 atul