Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Niranjan and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2018GOVA/656/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the State challenged the acquittal of accused respondents accused of murder and arson. The High Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the trial court's conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant contradictions in witness testimony and lack of cogent evidence.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal refused; application rejected; appeal dismissed; trial court's acquittal upheld.

State of U.P. Vs Niranjan and 2 Others — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 656 of 2014 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Niranjan And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶4

Heard learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2013 by means of which all the accused – respondents Niranjan, Jai Prakash and Rakesh alias Pappu have been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 302/34, 307/34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.

¶5

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 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.

¶6

Keeping in view the contensions as have been raised at the bar of this Court by the learned AGA and the grounds taken in the memo of appeal the court has proceded to examine the findings as have been recorded by the Court concerned. The perusal of the record shows that one Sachin Singh had given an application to the police with regard to an incident said to have taken place on 14.1.2005 at about 5 p.m.. In the said application it has been stated that the younger brother of the first informant named Deepak along with his Fufa Mahavir Singh were coming from Sasani by private bus, near the house of Niranjan Singh where the accused-respondents Niranjan Singh, Devendra Pal, Jaiprakash, Rakesh alias Papu were present, amongst them jaiprakash was carring a cricket balla near the said a house a scuffle took place in which Deepak was assaulted by Jaiprakash with the bat and the other persons have assaulted him by feisty and calf.

¶7

In view of the aforesaid background, we find that as far as P.W. 1 is concerned, testimony has been very elaborately gone into by trial court most relevant part of which judgment is being extracted herein below

¶8

blh lk{kh us vius c;ku esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd cl Lvki gekjs ?kj ls 1@2 fdeh0 nwj gSA bl c;ku ds vuqlkj esjk er gS fd bl lk{kh dks Bkdqj cPpw flag ds ?kj ds ikl tgka cl LVki gS ] ogh mrjuk pkfg;s Fkk D;ksafd cl LVki pkSjkgs ls bl lk{kh dk ?kj dsoy 1@2 fdeh0 nwj gS rx ;g lk{kh vfHk;qDr fujatu flag ds ?kj ds ikl D;ksa mrjk] tc fd vfHk;qDr fujatu flag ds ? kj ls bl lk{kh dk ?kj 1 fdeh0 nwj gSA tSlk fd ge iwoZ esa Hkh mYys[k dj pqds gSA cl esa dksbZ Hkh lokj ;k=h viuh lqfo/kkuqlkj vius ?kj ds ikl gh mrjuk pkgrk gSA bl lk{kh us vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd ^^ eq>s ugha ekywe esjs diM+s QVs Fks ;k ughaA esjs [kwu fudyk FkkA esjh pkan esa [kwu fudyk FkkA^^ fdUrq bl lk{kh dk eSMhdy ijh{k.k ugha gqvk gS vkSj u gh eSMhdy ijh{k.k fjiksVZ i=koyh ij miyC/k gS] ;g rF; Hkh eq>s vLokHkkfod yx jgk gSA pwafd ;g lk{kh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ Fkkus ij ntZ djkus x;k Fkk] bl lk{kh dks Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k us ekjkihVk FkkA rc ml fLFkfr esa bl lk{kh dk Hkh eSMhdy ijh{k.k gksuk pkfg,s FkkA bl lk{kh us vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd ^^ egkohj flag esjs QwQk th gS ftudks vius lkFk gksuk crk jgk gS] bUgksaus ?kVuk ugha ns[kh^^A lk{kh vkxs ;g Hkh c;ku ns jgk gS fs eSaus viuh fjiksVZ esa ;g ckr fy[kkbZ gS fd ^^ ?kVuk ds le; ejsj QwQk egkohj flag cl ls lkluh ls vk jgs Fks^^A tSlk fd mi;qZDr lk{kh us vius mi;ZDr c;ku dh eq[; ijh{kk

¶9

esa dgk gS fd eSa o esjk NksVk HkkbZ nhid o egkohj flag izkbosV cl ls lkluh ls vkdj vius xkao esa fujatu flag ds edku ds lkeus vkdj mrjs] cr bl lk{kh dk c;ku fo'okl djus ;ksX; ugha jg tkrk gS D;ksafd ;g ,d rjQ rks ;g c;ku ns jgk gS fd ?kVuk ds le; mlds QwQk egkohj flag mlds lkFk ?kVukLFky ij cl ls mrjs fdUrq izfrijh{kk ds c;ku esa ;g c;ku ns jgk gS fd egkohj flag us ?kVuk ugha ns[khA

¶10

With regard to testimony P.W. 5 who was declared hostile, the court below has observed herein as under:

¶11

lk{kh egkohj flag ih0MCyw0 5 dk c;ku gS fd dbZ lky igys dh ?kVuk gS fd eSa lapsUnz ds lkFk lkluh ls vk jgk FkkA eSa fujatu ds ?kj ds lkeus mrjk FkkA lpsUnz ls tks ekjihV gq;h Fkh] fujatu vkfn us ekjihV dh FkhA eSa mldk Qslyk djkdj vius ?kj pyk x;kA ckn esa D;k ? kVuk ?kfVr gq;h] eq>s ugha ekyweA bl izdkj bl lk{kh us vfHk;qDr t;izdk'k vkfn dks fdzdsV ds cYys ls nhid dks ekjrs gq;s ugha ns[kkA bl lk{kh us vius c;ku esa ?kVuk dh dksbZ frfFk ugha crk;h gSA tSlk fd c;ku esa mlus dgk gS fd dbZ lky igys dh ?kVuk gS vksj lpsUnz ls tks ekjihV gq;h Fkh] fujatu vkfn us ekjihV dh Fkh] mlesa Qslyk djkdj og vius ?kj pyk x;kA mlds ckn mlus dksbZ ?kVuk ugha ns[khA bl lk{kh ls vfHk;kstu i{k us foLrkj iwoZd izfrijh{kk dh fdUrq vfHk;kstu vius i{k esa dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fudky ldk D;ksafd ;g lk{kh ?kVuk dk p{kqn'khZ lk{kh gS] blus vfHk;kstu dFkkud dk leFkZu ugha fd;k gS vkSj lk{kh dks vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls i{knzksgh ?kksf"kr djok;k x;k gSA

¶12

With regard to testimony of P.W. 2, the court below has observed herein as under:

¶13

lk{kh vt; ih0MCyw0&2 dk lk{; bl izdkj gS fd iksus pkjlky igys djhc 5 cts 'kke dk le; FkkA eSa lM+d ij ?kweus tk jgk FkkA eSaus 'kksj xqy dh vkokt gujatu flag ds edku dh rjQ ls lquhA eSa lq[kiky ckcw yky ekSds ij igqWps rks ns[kk fd nhid vkSj lpsUnz dks t;izdk'k] fujatu] nsosUnz ekjihV dj jgs FksA t;izdk'k ds gkFk esa fdzdsV dk cYyk Fkk ckdh rhu yksx ykr ? kwlksa ls ekjihV dj jgs FksA cYyk t;izdk'k ds gkFk es Fkk vkSj og nhid dks cYys ls ekj jgk FkkA rHkh jkds'k ?kj dh rjQ Hkkxk vkSj og cUnwd fudky dj vk;k vkSj mlus gekjh rjQ Qk;j fd;k] ge cky&cky cp x;s rFkk nhid dks tku ls ekj fn;kA ej?kV dh tehu ds Åij nks fnu igys vkil esa eqWgpksnh gks x;h FkhA ;gka ij ;g mYys[k djuk Hkh furkar vko';d gS fd mDr lk{kh izFke lwpuk fjiksVz esa ukfer lk{kh ugha gS vkSj u gh bl lk{kh dk ?kVukLFky ds vklikl ?kj gSA tSlk fd lk{kh ih0MCyw0&1 lpsUnz us vius c;ku esa crk;k gSA bl lk{kh ds c;ku ds vuqlkj og 'kke 5 cts ?kweus tk jgk FkkA bl lk{kh us izfrijh{kk esa vius c;ku esa dgk gS fd tgka dke fey tkrk gS oSlk gh dke eSa etnwj ds :i esa dj ysrk gWwA etnwjh dk le; lqcg ukS cts ls 'kke ikap cts rd veweu gksrk gSA ?kVuk okys fnu eSa etnwjh djus ugha x;k FkkA esjs er ls 'kke 5 cts dk le; ?kweus dk le; ugha gksrk gSA pwafd mDr lk{kh us vius dksetnwj dgk gSA vr% etnwj O;fDr 'kke 5 cts /kweus tk;sxk] ;g rF; eq>s dqN vViVk lk yx jgk gSA bl lk{kh us viuh izfrijh{kk ds c;ku esa dgk gS fd ^^nhid ds QwQk egkohj flag dks mlus ?kVukLFky ij ugha ns[kk FkkA blizdkj bl lk{kh ds c;ku ls Hkh ;g rF; Li"V gks jgk gS fd lk{kh egkohj flag us ?Kvuk dks ? kfVr gksrs gq;s ugha ns[kkA bl lk{kh us vius c;ku esa vkxs ;g Hkh dgk gS fd eSaus oknh lpsUnz] e`rd nhid o egkohj flag dks cl ls mrjrs ugha ns[kkA

¶14

bl izdkj ej?kV ds Åij gq;s fookn dks vfHk;qDr i{k o ifjoknh i{k ds chp gksuk dgk tkrk gS] mlds lUnHkZ esa bl lk{kh dks dksbZ Kku ugha gSA bl lk{kh dks dsoy ckn esa irk pyk FkkA

¶15

The court has further observed with regard to the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W.2 herein as under.

¶16

bl vfHk;ksx esa ns[kus ;ksX; rF; ;g gS fd lk{kh lpsUnz ih0MCyw0&1 o lk{kh vt; ih0MCyw0&2 us vius c;kuksa esa dgk gS fd vfHk;qDr jkds'k vius ?kj ls cUnwd fudky dj yk;k vkSj mlus ?kVukLFky ij Qk;j fd;s FksA lk{kh vt; mi;ZqDr us vius c;ku esa ;g Hkh dgk gS fd jkds'k us mlds Åij cUnwd ls Qk;j fd;s FksA fdUrq mDr Qk;j ls dksbZ pksV fdlh O;fDr dks ugha vk;h] ,slk lk{; ls Li"V gks jgk gS fd cUnwd iqfyl }kjk cjken Hkh dh x;h fdUrq dksbZ [kks[kk dkjrwl¼fVdyh½ iqfyl us ekSds ls cjken ugha fd;kA tc fd lk{kh vt; ih0MCyw0&2 us viuh izfrijh{kk ds c;ku esa dgk gS fd ?kVuk gksrs gh Fkkuk dksrokyh dh iqfyl ekSds ij vk x;h FkhA ;fn cUnwd ls Qk;j jkds'k }kjk ?kVukLFky ij fd;k x;k gksrk rks fuf'pr :i ls ?kVukLFky ls [kks[kk dkjrwl iqfyl }kjk cjken fd;k tkrk gSA fof/kd n`f"V ls ns[kus ;ksX; rF; ;g Hkh gS fd vfHkdfFkr cjken cUnwd dks foospd us fof/k foKku iz;ksx'kkyk] vkxjk dks ijh{k.k gsrq ugha HkstkA vr% ;g dSls eku fy;k tk; fd vfHkdfFkr cjken cUnwd ls ?kVuk dh frfFk o le; ij Qk;j fd;s x;s FksA

¶17

The Court further has gone through the entire evidence, findings with regard to the motives with “ atah prastut abhiyog ke ghatna ka motive abhiyojan pachh sabit nahi kar saka hain.”

¶18

The court has further observed with regard to motive that “ Prastut abhiyog me bhi apradh ke motive ko abhiyojan pachh ne sabit nahi kiya hain jo chashudarshi sakshi hain unke bayan evam abhiyojan pakchh ki babat paryapt bhinnata hain.”

¶19

The court has further observed herein as under:

¶20

bl izdkj mDr ys[kiky ftlus ej?kV dh tehu dh iSekb'k xkao yqVlku esa dh gSA mlus dgk gS fd mDr Hkwfe ij eq>s fdlh O;fDr dk uktkbt dCtk ugha feykA vr% vfHk;kstu i{k ej? kV dh tehu dks ysdj vfHk;qDr ls fookn dh ckr dks lkfcr ugha dj ldk gSA

¶21

dgus dk rkRi;Z ;g gS fd cpko i{k dk dguk gS fd ?kVuk d le; vfHk;qDr jkds'k ? kVukLFky ij mifLFkr ugha FksA esjs er ls ;|fi mDr izek.k i= ij izn'kZ Hkh ugha Mkyk x;k gS vksj u gh mldks tkjh djus okys nkÅn;ky xqIrk]leUo;d }kjk lkfcr djk;k x;k gSA vr% bl izek.ki= ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd vfHk;qDr jkds'k ?kVuk ds le; M~;wVh ij FksA fdUrq cpko i{k dk viuk cpko gSA vfHk;kstu dks Lo;a vius iSjksa ij [kM+k gksuk pkfg,sA vfHk;kstu i{k cpko i{k dh fdlh detksjh dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA vfHk;kstu i{k dks vius dsl dks lUnsg ls ijs vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) lkfcr djuk gksrk gSA

¶22

eSa vius edku ij FkkA tgka erd nhid dh yk'k iM+h Fkh] eSa ogka mifLFkr FkkA ogka xkao ds cgqr ls vkneh FksA iapk;rukek esjs lkeus rS;kj fd;k x;k FkkA iapk;rukek ij ejsj o vU; xokgku ds nLr[kr djk;s x;sA dkxt la[;k&10v@4 esjs lkeus gS ftl ij esjs nLr[kr gSa ml ij izn'kZ d&2 Mkyk x;kA bl izdkj bl lk{kh ds c;ku ds vuqlkj lk<+s pkj cts erd nhid ds iapk;rukek dh dk;Zokgh lEiUu gks x;h Fkh tc fd ?kVuk 5 cts dh crk;h tkrh gS vkSj ?kVuk ds ?kfVr gksus ds dqN le; igys gh iapk;rukek dh dk;Zokgh gksuk vLokHkkfod yxrk gS fdUrq bl lk{kh ds c;ku ds vuqlkj ?kVuk 5 cts ls igys gh ?kfVr gks pqdh Fkh vkSj lk<+s pkj cts rd iapk;rukek dh dk;Zokgh lEiUu gks pqdh FkhA vr% ;|fi ;g lk{kh rF; dk lk{kh ugha gS fdUrq bldh lk{; ls bruk fu"d"kZ vo'; fudy jgk gS fd ekeyk lafnX/k gSA

¶23

Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid evidence on record the trial court has concluded herein as below.

¶24

lk{kh vt; ih0MCyw0&2 dk c;ku eq>s fo'ks"k :i ls blfy;s fo'oluh; izrhr ugha gks jgk gS rFkk mDr lk{kh dh ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkfr eq>s vLokHkkfod blfy;s izrhr gks jgh gS fd mDr lk{kh ?kVukLFky ij fdl dkj.k ls mifLFkr FkkA mldk ?kj ?kVukLFky ds vklikl ugha gS vkSj u gh og viuh lk{; esa crk ldk fd og fdl dk;Z ls ?kVukLFky ij x;k FkkA mlus dsoy vius c;ku esa ;g dgk gS fd og 'kke dks Vgyus tk jgk Fkk tSlk fd esjs }kjk iwoZ esa mYys[k fd;k tk pqdk gS fd ,d etnwj O;fDr dke [kRe djus ds mijkar 'kke dk 5 cts Vgyus tk;] ;g vLokHkkfod rF; gSA lkekU;r% O;fDr izkr%dky gh Vgyrk gSA bl izdkj lk{kh lpsUnz ih0MCyw0&1 o vt; ih0MCyw&2 ds c;kuksa esa cM+s fojk/kkHkkl Hkh gSa vkSj muds c;ku ,sls Hkh ugha gS ftuds vk/kkjk ij vfHk;qDrx.k dks nks"k flf) fd;k tk ldsA cpko i{k dh vksj ls ,0lh0lh0 1998¼36½ ¼,l0lh0½ i`"B 38 Jherh vkseorh cuke egsUnz flag vkfn dk fof/k fu.kZ; nkf[ky fd;k x;kA tSlk fd cpko i{k dh vksj ls nkf[ky bl fof/k fu.kZ; dk iwoZ esa gh mYys[k fd;k tk pqdk gS A tSlk ds vfHk;kstu viuk dsl lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr ugha dj ik;k gS vksj ?kVuk dk eksfVo Hkh lkfcr ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;qDrx.k dks lUnsg dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS vkSj vfHk;qDrx.k dks nks"keqDr fd;k tkuk gh mfpr gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa mi;qZDr nksuksa lk{kh lpsUnz ih0MCyw0&1 o vt; ih0MCyw0&2 ds c;kuks ds vk/kkj ij ?kVuk ds rF; iw.kZ :i ls lkfcr ugha gks jgs gSa vkSj mu lkf{k;ksa ds c;ku Hkh ,sls gSa tks lUnsg dks tUe ns jgs gSaA i=koyh ij tks lk{; miyC/k gS] mlls vfHk;kstu i{k viuk dsl vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa iw.kZ:ij ls vlQy jgk gSA

¶25

fu"d"kZ :i esa vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dks lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk gS vr% vfHk;qDrx.k vius fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds vUrxZr nks"keqDR gksus ds ik= gSaA

¶26

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:

¶27

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.

¶28

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 ].

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

Harijan vs. State of U.P. 2012 AIR SCW 2990 and Murugesan v. State through Inspector of Police reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5627.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.

¶37

Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for consequential follow up action.

¶38

Order Date :- 20.7.2018

¶39

A.N. Mishra

State of U.P. v. Niranjan and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Niranjan and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Sukhdev Sharma

State of U.P. Vs Master Shakoor and Another

State of U.P. Vs Mahavir and Others

State of U.P. Vs Mukesh

State of U.P. Vs Pramod Kumar and 7 Others

State of U.P. Vs Om Prakash