The High Court refused leave to appeal against the acquittal of respondents in an IPC and SC/ST Act case. Relying on settled principles, the court held the trial court properly appreciated evidence, noting medical reports and victim testimony were doubtful. No case for interference was made out.
Leave to appeal refused; 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.
Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 433 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Mukesh Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Counsel for Respondent :- Vikrant Neeraj
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.11.2017 by means of which all the accused – respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 376, 511, 392 of IPC and 3(1)X SC/ST Act.
We have perused the impugned judgment. Perusal of the judgment dated 23.11.2017 shows that the concerned court has recorded categorical findings after perusing the entire evidence on record. Keeping in view the contentions as have been raised by the learned AGA at the bar, we have perused the findings as recorded by the court below in the order impugned. The record shows that victim is a maried woman and the allegation as have been made in the F.I.R. cannot be believed even otherwise the victim herself has been examined as P.W. 3 and the court below with regard to her statement testimony has observed hereinasunder:
izLrqr ekeys esa lk{kh ih-MCyw-&3 y{ehnsoh ds c;ku vfHkfyf[kr fd;s tkus ds iwoZ U;k;ky; }kjk mls l{ke lk{kh ekuk tkuk vo/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS ysfdu bl lk{kh us tks c;ku b'kkjs ls U;k;ky; ds le{k fn;k gS] mlesa vfHk;qDr dh vijk/k esa lafyIrrk fo'oluh; ugha dgh tk ldrh gS vkSj ek= bl lk{kh ds mijksDr c;kuksa ls vfHk;qDr dh vijk/k esa nks"kfl)h fdlh rjg lqjf{kr ugha gksxhA
The medical examination was also done after a period almost after six days of the incident and the medical examination does not support the case of the prosecution.
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 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 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 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 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 :- 20.7.2018
A.N. Mishra
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the trial court's acquittal when two reasonable views are possible from the evidence.
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt considering contradictions and infirmities in the case.
Whether the leaf to appeal against the acquittal should be granted given the lack of illegality or perversity in the findings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & OrsExplained¶9
Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors reported in 2018 (5) SCC 790 · Who else cites this
Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of MaharashtraApplied¶11
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 IndiaExplained¶12
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 · Who else cites this
Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶15
Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1961 SC 715
Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶15
Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Basappa Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶15
Basappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Ashok Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶15
Ashok Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P.Referred¶15
Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P. 2012 AIR SCW 2990 · Who else cites this
Murugesan v. State through Inspector of PoliceReferred¶15
Murugesan v. State through Inspector of Police reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5627 · Who else cites this
State Of U.P.
Mukesh
Vipin Sinha
Ifaqat Ali Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
