This single-judgeHigh Court of India dismissed the state's application for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal. The court held that the trial court reasonably doubted the evidence, including false witness testimony and unverified recovery of a weapon.
Application for leave to appeal rejected; consequent 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.
Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4076 of 2011
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Raj Singh Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal for filing appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2011 by means of which the present accused respondent Raj Singh who is one of the accused has been acquitted of the offences under Sections 148, 302, 149 IPC.
We have also perused the impugned order and the lower court record which is available before this Court. We have perused the testimony of PW-1 Birju and the contradictions contained therein. The court concerned while acquitting the accused respondent has summarized the grounds at page 12 of the impugned judgment which are extracted hereinbelow:-
mijksDr foospuk ls ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k dks erd fiUVw mQZ rstohj dh gR;k dk dksbZ eksfVo izkIr ugh Fkk] erd ds 'ko ds ikl Hkh [kwu ik;k tkuk o vfHk;qDr NksVw ds ?kj esa Hkh [kwu ik;k tkuk dgk x;k gS ijUrq vfHk;kstu dk dsl u rks ;g gS fd fiUVw mQZ rstohj dh NksVw ds ?kj esa gR;k dh xbZ vkSj u gh ;g dsl gS fd ?kVuk esa vfHk;qDrx.k esa ls Hkh dksbZ pqVSy gqvk FkkA bl izdkj vfHk;kstu vfHk;qDr NksVw ds ?kj esa rFkkdfFkr izkIr [kwu dk Li"Vhdj.k ugh ns ldk gSA tSlk fd igys gh dgk tk pqdk gS fd vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k fcjtw ih0MCyw0 1 o nsosUnz ih0MCyw0 2 U;k;ky; ds vFkd iz;kl ds ckn xokgh nsus U;k;ky; esa vk;s vkSj ih0MCyw0 1 fcjtw us fnukWd 18-3-2010 dks dh xbZ izfri`PNk esa vfHk;kstu vfHkdFkk dks fljs ls udkj fn;k ijUrq U;k;ky; ds ckgj mifLFkr mldh iRuh gseyrk ds dgus ij og vius c;ku ls eqdj x;k vkSj dgk fd mlds iq= dks ekjus dh /kedh vfHk;qDrx.k us nh Fkh blfy;s Mj ds ekjs mlus xyr c;kuh dh FkhA /kedh okyh ckr u rks lk{kh us U;k;ky; dks crkbZ vkSj ugh vius vf/koDrk dksA U;k;ky; ds ckgj ;|fi gseyrk mifLFkr
jgh ijUrq og lk{; gsrq U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugh vkbZA rgjhj izn'kZd&1 esa ? kVuk dks tks C;ksjk vafdr gS mlds foijhr vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k us U;k;ky; esa fn;s x;s vius c;ku esa lq/kkj djrs gq;s c;ku fn;s gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ,UVh Vkbe ntZ dh xbZ izrhr gksrh gSA erd fiUVw mQZ rstohj ds fo:) dbZ vkijkf/kd ekeys ntZ FksA erd fiUVw mQZ rstohj dks dsoy ,d vkXus;kL= dh pksV vkbZ gS] vfHk;qDr NksVs ds vfrfjDr vU; eqfYteku dk Hkh ekSds ij l'kL= [kM+k gksuk dgk x;k gSA vfHk;qDr fouksn ds fo:) mldh fu;qfDr ?kVuk ds le; fcgkj iqfyl esa gksus ds ukrs] vkjksi i= iszf"kr ugha fd;k x;k gSA rFkkdfFkr vfHk;qDrx.k ds nks vKkr lkfFk;ksa ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ foospuk ugha dh xbZ gSA vfHk;qDrx.k jktflag] euohj us vU;= fuoflr gksus ds lEcU/k esa vfHkys[k nkf[ky fd;s gSA lk{kh ih0MCyw0 1 fcjtw dk ?kVuk LFky ds lehi vjgj ds [ksr esa [kM+s gksuk o lk{kh nsosUnz ih0MCyw0 2 dk ?kVuk LFky ds lehi NksVw ds edku ds lkeus Lo;a gseyrk o d`".kyky ds lkFk [kM+k gksuk Hkh lafnX/k gS D;ksafd ml le; u rks efUnj tkus dk le; Fkk vkSj u gh ;g la;ksx gks ldrk Fkk fd fnu ds pkj cts rhuks efUnj tk;sA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k NksVw] le; flag] jktflag] euohj o Jherh fot;k ds fo:) ?kkrd gfFk;kjksa ls ySl gksdj fof/k fo:) teko o lkekU; m)s'; ds vxzlj.k esa fiUVw mQZ rstohj dh gR;k djus dk rF; LFkkfir ugha fd;k tk ldk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k NksVw] euohj] jktflag] le; flag o Jherh fot;k /kkjk 148 o /kkjk 302 lifBr /kkjk 149 Hkk0na0la0 ds v/khu vijk/k ds vkjksi ls nks"k eqDr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
Further, it may also be noted that even the recovery of weapon from the accused is false and fabricated and the court concerned has disbelived the recovery of the weapon. The court concerned has further observed that “okLro esa e`rd fiUVw mQZ rstohj ds 'kjhj ls izkIr eSVfyd cqyV dks fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk Hkstk tkuk pkfg;s Fkk rkfd ;g LFkkfir gks ldrk fd ;g cqyV rFkkdfFkr cjken reUps ls pykbZ xbZ Fkh ijUrq vfHk;kstu }kjk rFkkdfFkr eSVfyd cqyV dks ijh{k.k gsrq ugh Hkstk x;kA”
Thus, the court concerned has rightly concluded that entire prosecution case is highly doubtful and accordingly the present respondent Raj Singh has been acquitted in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings as recorded by the court concerned. The counsel for the State has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded
by the trial court.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for grant of any indulgence has been made out.
Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal inasmuch as it pertains to accused respondent Raj Singh is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Copy of the order may be certified to the court concerned in accordance with law for consequential follow up action.
The lower court record be sent back to the court concerned at the earliest.
Order Date :- 2.7.2018 SP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted in appeal against acquittal of the accused respondent.
Whether the lower court's finding based on doubtful prosecution evidence constitutes any illegality or perversity warranting interference.
State Of U.P.
Raj Singh
Vipin Sinha
Ifaqat Ali Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
