The High Court refused leave to appeal in an appeal against acquittal, holding that the trial court's finding was based on evidence and supported by cogent reasons.
Leave to appeal refused; application rejected; appeal dismissed; no interference warranted with acquittal.
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 :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1640 of 2014 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Sukhdev Sharma Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate on the application seeking leave to appeal and perused the record.
The present government appeal has been filed along with an application for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.01.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court no. 16, Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 50/12 whereby accused-respondent, namely, Sukhdev Sharma has been acquitted for the offences under Sections 307, 506 IPC & 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Jahagirabad, District Bulandshahar.
Learned A.G.A. 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 has 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 judgment and order dated 10.01.2014 and the findings as recorded therein.
Perusal of the judgment shows that while returning the verdict of acquittal, the court concenred has recorded the following findings:
“ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj ?kVuk ds le; oknh eqdnek ds 'kksj ij tlohj iq= djuiky] eukst iq= ohjflag] jes'k pUnz iq= nqyhpUnz o jkekSrkj iq= gjopu vkfn yskx igaqp x;s Fks] fdUrq vfHk;kstu i{k us ? kVuk ds mijksDr p'enhn lkf{k;ksa esa ls dsoy jes'k pUnz iq= nqyhpUnz
2
dks ih0MCyw0&2 ds :i esa ijhf{kr djk;k gSA ih0MCyw0&2 us vius c;ku dh eq[; ijh{kk esa Lo;a dks ?kVuk dk p'enhn lk{kh crkrs gq;s ?kVuk laca/kh vfHk;kstu dFkkud dk leFkZu fd;k gS] fdUrq fnukad 15-3-13 dks gq;sa izfrijh{kk esa mlus dgk gS fd] fnukad 26-4-11 dks 7-30 cts 'kke dks og vius ?kj ls [ksrks ds fy;s pyk Fkk] og ?kj ls iSny iSny x;k FkkA fd'kuiqj okys cEcs ij og djhc ,d ?k.Vs esa igaqp x;k FkkA ogka ij mlus ,d oSxukj dkj [kM+h ns[kh FkhA ogka ij mlus tkdj ns[kk rks /keZiky ?kk;y voLFkk esa iM+k FkkA vk/ks ?k.Vsa esa ogka xkao ds dkQh yksx vk x;s FksA ih0MCyw0&2 }kjk izfrijh{kk esa fd;k x;k mDr dFku ;g nf'kZr djrk gS fd] ?kVuk ds le; og ekSds ij ekStwn ugh FkkA ?kVuk pwafd 7-30 cts dh crkbZ xbZ gS vkSj ih0MCyw0&2 us ?kVuk ds le; ls yxHkx ,d ?k.Vs ckn ekSds ij igqapuk crk;k gSA vr% ih0MCyw0&2 ds mDr c;ku ls vfHk;kstu dk ;g dFku Hkh [kf.Mr gks tkrk gS fd] ? kVuk ds le; oknh eqdnek ds 'kksj ij jes'k pUnz lfgr tlohj] eukst] jkekSrkj vkfn ekSds ij vk x;sa gks rFkk ?kVuk dks ns[kk gks vkSj chp cpko fd;k gksA
ih0MCyw0&2 jes'k pUnz ds ?kVuk dk p'enhn lk{kh lkfcr u gksus ls ?kVuk laca/kh rF;xr lkf{k;ksa dks :i esa dsoy ih0MCyw0&1 oknh eqdnek dk c;ku 'ks"k cprk gSA mldk ?kVuk laca/kh U;k;ky; esa fn;k x;k c;ku dbZ fcUnqvksa ij fojks/kkHkk"kh o lafnX/k gSA mlds c;ku ds foijhr cpko i{k dh vksj ls ijhf{kr rhuksa lQkbZ lkf{k;ksa us vfHk;qDr ds vU;= gksus ds vfHkokd dh iqf"V djrs gq;sa ;g dgk gS fd] fnukad 26-411 dks 'kke 6-00 cts ls jkr 12-00 cts rd vfHk;qDr lq[knso 'kekZ xkao ds gfjvkse 'kekZ iq= txnh'k izlkn 'kekZ ds ?kj ij vk;ksftr lqUnj dkaM ds ikB ds dk;ZØe esa ekStwn FkkA fuZfookn :i ls cpko lkf{k;ksa ds lk{; dk egRo] vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds lk{; ds rqY; gksrk gSA cpko lkf{k;ksa ls vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls dh x;h ftjg esa ,slk dksbZ rF; ugh vk;k gS] ftlls fd muds eq[; c;ku esa fd;s x;s dFku dks lansg dh n`f"V ls ns[kk tk;saA
tgka rd pqVSy /keZiky flag ds pksVksa ls lacaf/kr batjh fjiksVZ izn'kZ d&6 dh fo'oluh;rk dk iz'u gS] cpko i{k dk ;g vkjksi gS fd] MkDVj txnh'k flag oknh eqdnek /keZiky flag ds tkfr dks gksus ds ukrs
3
oknh eqdnek ls izHkkfor gksdj QthZ esfMdy fjiksVZ rS;kj dh gSA pqVSy dh batjh fjiksVZ esa vafdr pksV la[;k&1 ds ckjs esa Mk0 txnh'k flag us vius c;ku ih0MCyw0&5 dh ftjg esa dgk gS fd] mDr pksV lkeus ls Qk;j djus ij ugh vk ldrh gS] tcfd ih0MCyw0&1 oknh eqdnek us vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd] mls Qk;j dh mDr pksV Nhuk>iVh esa reUps dh uky idM+ ysus ds dkj.k vk;h FkhA esjs fopkj ls Nhuk>iVh ds le; vfHk;qDr o oknh eqdnek vkeus lkeus jgs gksaxsA oknh eqdnek us Hkh ftjg ds vafre i`"B ij eqfYte }kjk Lo;a ij lkeus ls geyk djuk crk;k gSA Mk0 txnh'k flag us pwafd pksV uEcj&1 dks lkeus ls vkus dh lEHkkouk ls badkj fd;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa pqVSy /keZiky dh batjh fjiksVZ izn'kZ d&6 dh izekf.kdrk Hkh lafnX/k gSA
foospd ih0MCyw0&4 lalkj flag us vius c;ku dh ftjg esa dgk gS fd eqfYte ls fdlh gfFk;kj dh cjkenxh ugh gqbZA mudk eq[; c;ku Hkh ;g bafxr djrk gS fd muds }kjk vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksii= izLrqr djus ds iwoZ nkSjku foospuk ?kVuk esa iz;qDr dfFkr reUps dh cjkenxh gsrq dksbZ iz;kl ugh fd;k x;kA foospd us vius c;ku dh ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDr vius c;ku ds le; mls ;g crk;k Fkk fd fnukad 26-4-11 dks og vius xkao ds gfjvkse 'kekZ iq= txnh'k izlkn 'kekZ ds ?kj ij 'kke 6-00 cts ls jkr 10-00 cts rd jkek;.k ds lqUnjdkaM ds ikB dks lquus gsrq ekStwn jgk] og mDr laca/k esa tkudkjh dj ldrk gS fdUrq foospd ds vuqlkj mlus mDr laca/k esa gfjvkse 'kekZ vFkok xkao ds fdlh vU; O;fDr ls iwNrkN djus vFkok mudk dksbZ c;ku ysus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugh le>hA foospd dk mDr c;ku ;g nf'kZr djrk gS fd foospd@lh0vks0 lalkj flag us bl ekeys esa foospuk laca/kh vkSipkfjdrkvksa dh dsoy iwfrZ dh gS muds } kjk ;fn lq:fpiw.kZ <+x ls foospuk dh x;h gksrh rks foospuk dk ifj.kke dqN vkSj gksrkA”
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
4
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
5
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
6
not be interfered with moreso in view of the fact that more than 7 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2011.
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.
Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.
Order Date :- 19.07.2018 Anand
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's acquittal finding where two reasonable views are possible from the evidence.
Whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt given contradictions in evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.Applied¶18
Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors 2018 (5) SCC 790 · Who else cites this
Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of MaharashtraExplained¶19
Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186 · Who else cites this
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of IndiaReferred¶22
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 · Who else cites this
Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶26
Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1961 SC 715
Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶26
Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No. 791 of 2011
Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P.Referred¶26
Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P. 2012 AIR SCW 2990 · Who else cites this
State Of U.P.
Sukhdev Sharma
Vipin Sinha
Ifaqat Ali Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vipin Sinha and Ifaqat Ali Khan
Parties & counsel
