Criminal Misc. Application filed for leave to appeal against an acquittal. The High Court refused leave and dismissed the application, holding that the trial court's view was reasonable and no perversity or patent error was evident to warrant interference.
Leave to appeal refused; Criminal Misc. Application rejected; Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 257 of 2018 Applicant :- Tara Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.5.2018 by means of which the sole accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 363, 366, 328, 323, 504, 506 (2) IPC and section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act in Sessions Trial Nos. 231 of 2015 and 235 of 2015.
Learned counsel for the applicant 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 perused the findings as recorded by the court below in the impugned judgment. The court below with regard to age of the victim has clearly observed as under:
“ izLrqr ekeys esa Mk0 ikjrks"k 'kqDyk jsfM;ksyksftLV crkSj lk{kh o ,Dljs fjiksVZ rFkk ,Dljs IysV izLrqr ugha gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ih0MCyw0&2 }kjk ihfM+rk dh vk;q 19 lky dgs tkus dk dksbZ lkf{kd egRo ugha gS vr,o ihfM+rk vo;Ld ekus tkus ;ksX; ugha gS fo'ks"kdj ml fLFkfr esa tc fd
2
cpko i{k }kjk ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr ,oa ihfM+rk ifr&iRuh gS vr,o bl lEcU/k esa i=koyh esa izkjEHk ls izLrqr ihfM+rk dk vfHk;qDr ls fookg lEcU/kh vuqca/k i= fnukafdr 08-082011 :o: xokgku o uksVjh e; ihfM+rk dh QksVks o gLrk{kj izLrqr fd;k x;k gks ftlesa ihfM+rk }kjk o"kZ 2011 esa 19 lky fn[kkrs gq;s vfHk;qDr ls fookg fd;k x;k gS ,oa bl izi= dk [k.Mu u fd;k x;k gS ,Slh fLFkfr ihfM+rk dk lh0,e0vks0 }kjk fn;k vk;q izek.k i= dks egRo fn;k tkuk mi;qDr izdV ugh gksrk gS] ftlesa ihfM+rk dh vk;q yxHkx 19 o"kZ fy[kh gSA ”
The court below has further observed herein as under:
“ mYys[kuh; gS fd Vkbi'kqnk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= izn'kZ d&1 esa dfFkr rkSj ij ihfM+rk }kjk vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd ihfM+rk dh eka y{eh nsoh cktkj x;h Fkh firk jkeLo:i fjD'kk pykus x;s Fks mlh le; ihfM+rk ds HkkbZ jfo dqekj ds lkFk ihfM+rk ds ? kj vkus okys pkyd lrsUnz ;kno vk;k vkSj dgk fd lkFk pyksa ihfM+rk ds firk dk ,DlhMsUV gks x;k gSA ihfM+rk mlds lkFk pyh x;h ctfj;k jsyos Lvs'ku esa lk{kh dks I;kl yxh vkSj ?kcjkgV gksus yxh rc ihfM+rk dks u'khyk inkFkZ is;ty esa fiyk;k] ftlls ihfM+rk csgks'k gks x;h tc ihfM+rk dks gks'k vk;k rks mlus vius dks djgy esa ik;kA izLrqr ekeysa esa ihfM+rk dk HkkbZ jfo dqekj crkSj vfHk;kstu lk{kh izLrqr ,oa ijhf{kr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ogh ;fn ihfM+rk ds HkkbZ dk ihfM+rk ds lkFk jsyos LVs'ku rd tkuk Lohdkj djk tk;s ml fLFkfr esa ihfM+rk ds csgks'k gksus ij LokHkkfod :i ls og vius ?kj vkus ij
3
vius ekrk & firk dks ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa vo'; crkrk ijUrq izLrqr vfHk;kstu dFkkud esa ,slk dksbZ lk{; ih0MCyw0&1 ihfM+rk ,oa mlds firk ih0MCyw0&4 }kjk ugha fn;k x;k gSA ogha LVs'ku tSls O;Lr LFkku ls ihfM+rk dks csgks'k voLFkk esa dgha ysdj tkuk ,oa fdlh O;fDr dks 'kd u gksuk vfHk;kstu dFkkud dks lR;rk dks lafnX/k cukrk gSA
ihfM+rk }kjk eq[; i`PNk esa dgk x;k gS fd vfHk;qDr }kjk djgy esa ihfM+rk ds lkFk cykRdkj fd;k x;kA rhu fnu ds ckn cqvk ds ;gka ,Vk ys x;k ogka Hkh cykRdkj fd;k blds ckn vfHk;qDr pksjh ds vkjksi esa tsy pyk x;k rc vfHk;qDr ds ekrk&firk o HkkbZ ihfM+rk dks Fkkuk vksNk ftyk eSuiqjh ys x;sA izLrqr ekeys esa ihfM+rk ,oa mlds firk }kjk dksbZ Hkh dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk lk{; vfHk;kstu i{k } kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA
ihfM+rk }kjk eq[; i`PNk esa dgk x;k fd 03 ekg tsy ls okil vk;k rc vfHk;qDr o mlds mijksDr ?kjokys ihfM+rk dks fQjkstkckn McjbZ dpgjh ys x;s vkSj LVkEi isij ij ihfM+rk ds gLrk{kj djk fy;sA izLrqr ekeys esa bl Lrj ij Hkh ihfM+rk }kjk tcjnLrh LVkEi ij gLrk{kj fy;s tkus dk dFku ugha fd;k gS ogh ihfM+rk us bl Lrj ij Hkh dksbZ fojks/k vFkok cpus dk iz;kl djus dk dFku ugha fd;k gSA
bl izdkj bl lk{kh us tgka ih0MCyw0&1 }kjk izLrqr lk{; dk leFkZu ugha fd;k ogh lk{kh }kjk dksbZ dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk lk{; ugha fn;k x;k gSA bl lk{kh }kjk
4
bl rF; dks fNik;k x;k fd dfFkr ?kVuk ds le; lk{kh dk iq= o ihfM+rk dk HkkbZ jfo dqekj ihfM+rk ds lkFk FkkA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g fo'oluh; lk{kh izdV ugha gksrk gSA fo'ks"k dj bl fLFkfr esa izfri`PNk esa bl lk{kh us dgk gks fd tc lk{kh us vius yM+ds jfo dqekj ls iwNk rks mlus lk{kh dks crk;k fd yM+dh lqjsUnz ds lkFk bVkok py x;h ,oa lk{kh }kjk dgk x;k fd lk{kh dks ugh ekywe fd lk{kh dh yM+dh us vfHk;qDr ds lkFk fQjkstkckn esa dksVZ eSfjt dj yh FkhA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds ckotwn lk{kh }kjk ? kVuk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh u djus ls vfHk;kstu dFkkud >wBk o cukoVh izrhr gksrk gSaA
izfri`PNk esa lk{kh us dgk fd lk{kh dh ?kjokyh y{eh nsoh us bldh fjiksVZ dksrokyh esa dh FkhA lk{kh }kjk Lor% fojks/kkHkklh dFku Hkh fd;k x;k fd lk{kh us lwpuk fnukad & 10-08-11 dks dksrokyh esa nh Fkh dksbZ dk;Zokgh u gksus ij ,l,lih ,oa Mh0,e0 dks i= fn;k FkkA ijUrq bl lEcU/k esa lk{kh }kjk fn;s x;s dksbZ izi= izLrqr o i=koyh ij lkfcr ugha fd;s x;s gS ftlls bl lk{kh dk lk{; Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; izdV gksA blds foijhr lk{kh }kjk dgk x;k fd ;g lgh gS fd ihfM+rk ds pys tkus ds ckotwn lk{kh ihfM+rk o vfHk;qDr ds ikl ugha x;kA lk{kh }kjk dgk x;k gS fd ;g lgh gS fd ihfM+rk dk iq= izkbosV Ldwy esa i<+ jgk gSA yM+dk gksus ds ckn ihfM+rk vius yM+ds furus'k dks ysdj lk{kh ds ?kj vk;h FkhA ijUrq lk{kh }kjk ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh
5
u djus ls vfHk;kstu dFkkud >wBk o cukoVh izrhr gksrk gSA ogh lk{kh }kjk Lohdkj djk x;k gS fd og ?kVuk ds le; ?kj ij ugh Fkk ,slh fLFkfr esa bl lk{kh dk lk{; vuqJqr lk{; gS tks crkSj lk{; Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA ”
Thus, the court below has concluded as under:
“ vfHk;qDr }kjk dFku vUrxZr /kkjk & 313 na0iz0lafgrk ys[kc) fd;k x;kA ftlesa vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls dFku fd;k x;k fd ^^okfnuh rkjknsoh us eq>ls viuh ethZ ls fnukad & 08-08-11 dks fQjkstkckn esa le{k xokgku 'kknh fd;k rFkk HkyhHkkafr lkFk jghA okfnuh vius firk ds dgus o HkM+dkus ij lkjh dk;Zokgh esjs f[kykQ fd;k] tks xyr gSA eSa funksZ"k gw¡A vkt Hkh iRuh dks lkFk j[kuk pkgrk gw¡A bl lEcU/k esa vfHk;qDr }kjk dkxt la[;k
& 30[k@1 yxk;r 30[k@3 ihfM+rk ls fookg lEcU/kh izi= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftldk [k.Mu ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% ;g izi= Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; izrhr gksrk gSA
mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij lk{kh ds lk{; vfo'oluh; ,oa vLohdkj djus ;ksX; izrhr gksrs gS rFkk ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd fufgr mn~ns';ksa gsrq >wBk o cukoVh vfHk;kstu dFkkud izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ”
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.
It is an established position of law that if the court below
6
has taken a view which is a possible view in a reasonable manner, then the same shall not be interfered with.
At this stage, 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
7
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 victimrespondents themselves are dubious, for instance admitting themselves later in a Multispeciality 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
8
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 Appea l 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 counsel for the applicant 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.
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 :- 9.7.2018 Kuldeep
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the acquittal recorded by the trial court in the absence of perversity or patent error of law.
Whether the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence recorded by the trial court.
Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal is maintainable given the consistent legal position regarding respecting the trial court's findings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.Applied¶31
2018 (5) SCC 790 · Who else cites this
Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of MaharashtraExplained¶32
(2008) 11 SCC 186 · Who else cites this
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of IndiaReferred¶35
(2011) 2 SCC 490 · Who else cites this
Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶39
1961 SC 715
Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶39
Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2011
Basappa Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶39
Criminal Appeal No. 512 of 2014
Ashok Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶39
Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2005
Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P.Referred¶39
2012 AIR SCW 2990 · Who else cites this
Murugesan v. State through Inspector of PoliceReferred¶39
2012 AIR SCW 5627 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Tara Devi
State Of U.P.
Vipin Sinha
Ifaqat Ali Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
