Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Kushal Pal

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2018GOVA/656/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the government appeal against the acquittal of a respondent charged with murder. The Court held that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence which contained contradictions, and that no case for interference was made out even though the prosecution evidence was disputed.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal refused; application rejected; appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

State of U.P. Vs Kushal Pal — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 51

¶3

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 656 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Kushal Pal Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Kumari Meena, learned Additional Government Advocate on the application seeking leave to appeal and perused the record.

¶6

The present government appeal has been filed along with an application for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.04.2018 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Deoband, district Saharanpur in S.T. No. 490/2016 whereby accusedrespondent, namely, Kushal Pal has been acquitted for the offences under Section 302 IPC P.S. Nanauta, District Saharanpur.

¶7

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.

¶8

We have perused the judgment and order dated 18.04.2018 and the findings as recorded therein.

¶9

While returning the verdict of acquittal, the court concerned has recorded a number of findings and the relevant portion of which are being quoted herein below:

¶10

“ ?kVuk ds le; oknh dqdnek dh iRuh ljkst ekSds ij ekStwn FkhA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa Hkh oknh eqdnrk us Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd fnukad 25-52016 dks izkr% 9%30 cts mldh iq=h dqekjh vUuw us feV~Vh dks rsy Mkydj vkx yxk yhA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa vfHk;qDr }kjk tcjnLrh djus dh dksbZ ckr ugh dh x;h gSA U;k;ky; ds le{k fn;s x;s c;ku esa Hkh oknh eqdnek us

¶11

¶12

Hkh bl rF; dk Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldh iq=h us fMizs'ku esa vkdj feVVh dks rsy Mkydj vkx yxk yh FkhA erdk ds firk o ekaW us vius c;kuksa esa Li"V :i bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd erdk vUuw VksMk tekyiqj esa tgkW mldh 'kknh rS; gqbZ Fkh 'kknh ugh djuk pkgrh Fkh ftldh otg ls fMizs'ku esa FkhA erdk dh ekW Lo; ?kVukLFky ij ekStwn FkhA mlus Hkh Li"V :i ls crk;k gS fd vfHk;qDr dq'kyiky dh erdk vUuw ds lkFk ckrphr djrs mlus ugh ns[kkA erdk dh ekW us Li"V :i ls dgk fd vfHk;qDr us erdk vUuw ds lkFk cykRdkj dk dksbZ iz;kl ugh fd;k vkSj uk gh vfHk;qDr usa erdk vUuw ds mij feV~Vh dk rsy Mkydj vkx yxk;h blls Hkh bl rF; dh iqf"V gksrh gS fd vfHk;qDr dk bl ?kVuk ls dksbZ lEcU/k ugha gSA ftl eR;q dkfyd dFku ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr dks bgl ekeys esa lqfyIr fd;k x;k gS og dFku erdk dks cgyk Qqlykdj v}Z fofNIr voLFkk esa djk;s x;s gS okLro esa erdk us dksbZ eR;q dkfyd dFku ugh fd;s gS mldh fLFkfr ,slh ugh Fkh fd og dksbZ eR;q dkfyd dFku LoU=r :i ls dj ldsA erdk dks loZizFke lh0,p0lh0 ukukSrk esa ys tk;k x;k tgkW ls mls ftyk vLirky lgkjuiqj jSQj fd;k x;k A lh0,p0lh0 ukukSrk ds ftl MkDVj }kjk erdk dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k gS mlus Li"V :i ls dgk fd erdk ftl le; lh0,p0lh0 ukukSrk yk;h x;h og cksyus dh fLFkfr esa ugh FkhA bldk dkj.k ;g crk;k x;k fd og 75 izfr'kr ls Hkh vf/kd ty x;h Fkh vkSj mldks nnZ fuokjd u'ks ds batsD'ku yxk;s x;s Fks blh dkj.k gks'k esa ugha Fkh vkSj cMcMk jgh Fkh A bl rF; dks erdk ds firk ih0MCyw0 1 lwjtHkku us Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA vfHk;qDr ds fo:) erdk ds eR;q dkfyd dFku fd;s x;s gS og fo'oluh; ugh gSA e`R;q dkfyd dFku vudks nqcZyrkvks ls ihfM+r gS ,slh fLFkfr esa fdlh LoU=r lk{kh ls iqf"V fd;s fcuk mls lk{; esa xzkg; ugh fd;k tk ldrkA vfHk;qDr ds fo:) ,slk dksbZ Hkh fo'oluh; lk{; i=koyh ij ugh gS ftlls mlds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi lkfcr gksrs gSA

¶13

PW-1 Surajbhan in his cross-examination has stated herein as under:

¶14

vUuw us eq>s dq'kyiky }kjk feV~Vh dks rsy Mkydj vkx yxkus okyh ckr ugh crk;h FkhA vUuw us eq>s eqfYte }kjk cykRdkj djus dh ckr ugh crk;h FkhA

¶15

eSaus njksxk th dks ;g c;ku lgh fn;k FkkA ?kVuk ds le; eS ekSds ij ekStwn ugh FkkA eSus bl dsl dh dksbZ ?kVuk viuh vkW[kksa ls ugha ns[khA

¶16

eSus rgjhj fcuk i<s vius gLrk{kj dj fn;s FksA rgjhj esjs gLrys[k esa ugh gS] eS dsoy gLrk{kj djuk tkurk gSwA eS fy[kuk i<uk ugha tkurkA

¶17

¶18

rgjhj fdlus fy[kh eS ugha crk ldrkA gekjs xkWo esa dq'kyiky iq= daojiky uke ds dbZ yMds gksxsA gkftj vnkyr eqfYte dq'kyiky dk ?kj esjs ?kj ds lkeus ugh gSA

¶19

u'ks ds bUtsD'ku yxus ds dkj.k esjh iq=h gks'k esa ugh Fkh vkSj dqN dqN cMcMk jgh FkhA

¶20

;g ckr lgh gS fd vUuw VksMk tekyiqj esa 'kknh ugh djuk pkgrh Fkh A ;g ckr lgh gS fd dq'kyiky Hkh vUuw ls 'kknh djuk pkgrk FkkA

¶21

So far as PW-2 Smt. Saroj is concerned, the court below has recorded the following observation:-

¶22

dq0 vUuw mez djhc 18 o"kZ esjh iq=h FkhA gkftj vnkyr eqfYteku dq'kyiky fnukad 25-05-2016 dks le; djhc 9-30 cts lqcg gekjs edku ij ugha vk;k FkkA eSa ml jkst dq'kyiky dks vUuw ds lkFk dksbZ ckrphr djrs ugha ns[kk FkkA dq'kyiky us esjs lkeus vUuw ds lkFk cykRdkj dk iz;kl ugha fd;k Fkk uk gh dq'kyiky us vUuw ds Åij feVVh dk rsy Mkydj vkx yxk;h FkhA ?kVuk okys fnu eqfYte dq'kyiky dks eSaus xkWo esa ugha ns[kk FkkA eSaus bl dsl ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ ?kVuk viuh vkW[kksa ls ugha ns[kh FkhA

¶23

^^?kVuk okys fnu dq'kyiky gekjs ?kj ij ugha vk;k Fkk vkSj uk gh mlus esjh yMdh ls dksbZ ckrphr dh Fkh

¶24

;g ckr lgh gS fd geus vUuw dk fj'rk VkWMk tekyiqj esa mldh bPNk ds fo:) rS; dj fn;k FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vUuw VkWMk tekyiqj esa ugha tkuk pkgrh FkhA^^

¶25

PW-3 Amit in his cross-examination has stated herein as under :-

¶26

oknh lwjtHkku esjk pkpk yxrk gSA ?kVuk ds 8&10 fnu ckn eS vius pkpk ds lkFk Fkkuk x;k FkkA ogkW njksxk th us dksjs dkxtksa ij esjs gLrk{kj djk;s FksA

¶27

PW-5 Dr. Ashish Kumar in his cross-examination has stated herein as under :-

¶28

;g lgh gS fd dqekjh vUuw fQVusl izek.k i= esa CyM izs'kj] Iyl vkW[kks dh iqryh ds y{k.k vafdr ugh fd;ks x;sA fQVusl fjiksVZ esa esjs }kjk ejht dk uke irk ugha fy[kk x;k gSA eS ugh crk ldrk fd jksxh dks D;k D;k nok bUtSD'ku vkfn fn;k x;k FkkA

¶29

¶30

DW-1 Dr. Sanjay Singh in his cross-examination has stated herein as under :-

¶31

dqekjh vUuw e`rdk cksyus dh fLFkfr esa ugh Fkh A tyus ds ckn ejht lnes dh otg ls cksyus dh fLFkfr esa ugh FkkA

¶32

Reference may also be made to the statement of Dr. Sanjay Singh who in his statement has stated herein as under:

¶33

MkDVj lat; flag us ;g Hkh crk;k fd ftl le; erdk mlds le{k yk;h x;h ml le; og lnes dh otg ls cksyus dh fLFkfr esa ugh Fkh ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g rF; fopkj.kh; gS fd tc erdk cksyus dh fLFkfr esa ugh Fkh rks fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa erdk ds eR;q dkfyd dFku fjdkMZ fd;s x;s gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa eR;q dkfyd dFku ij rc rd fo'okl ugh fd;k tk ldrk tc rd LoU=r ,oa fo'oluh; lk{; ls mldh lEiqf"V uk gks tk;sA fcuk lEiqf"V ds eqR;q dkfyd dFku ml ifjfLFkfr esa ekU; gS tcfd ,slk eR;q dkfyd dFku LoSfPNd] lR; ,o fo'oluh; gks rFkk fdlh nqcZyrk ls ihfMr u gksA

¶34

There is also dispute with regard to the identity of the accusedrespondent and with regard to which, the court below has recorded the following observation:

¶35

bl rF; dh iqf"V oknh eqdnek lwjtHkku tks erdk ds firk gS ds c;kuks ls Hkh gksrh gS fd mUgksaus crk;k fd muds ?kj ds lkeus 'kh'kjke dk gh edku gS ftlls Li"V gS fd dq'kyiky iq= daojiky erdk ds edku ds lkeus ugha jgrk gSA e`rdk ds firk us vius c;kuksa esa Li"V :i ls dgk fd gkftj vnkyr eqfYte dq'kyiky iq= daojiky dk ?kj mlds ?kj ds lkeus ugha gSA

¶36

,slh ifjfLFkfr esa eR;q dkfyd dFku ls ;g lkfcr ugh gksrk fd bl ekeys esa vfHk;qDr dq'kyiky iq= daojiky ogh O;fDr gS ftldk ftdz eR;q dkfyd dFku esa fd;k x;k gSA

¶37

vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ugh dgk tk ldrk fd tks eR;q dkfyd dFku U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS og iw.kZr% LoSfPNd] lR; ,oa fo'oluh; gSA ;g eR;q dkfyd dFku nqcZyrkvks ls ihfMr gSA blls

¶38

¶39

Li"V :i ls vfHk;qDr dh igpku ugh gksrh gSA ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd e`R;q dkfyd dFku fl[kk;s] i<k;s tkus ds ifj.kke:o:i mRizsfjr gksdj fd;k x;k gSA

¶40

bl ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa Li"V :i ls dgk x;k gS fd erdk us Lo;a feVVh dk rsy fNMdj vkRe gR;k dh gSA bl lanHkZ esa tks lk{; U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k fd;k x;k gS mlds lq{e fo'ys"k.k ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd erdk dq'kyiky uked ds O;fDr ls isze djrh Fkh rFkk nksuksa vkil esa 'kknh djuk pkgrs FksA mlds ?kj okys us mldh 'kknh VkWMk tykyiqj esa rS; dj nh Fkh ijUrq erdk VkWMk tykyiqj ugha tkuk pkgrh Fkh ftlls bl lEHkkouk dks gh cy feyrk gS fd erdk us Lo;a feVVh dk rsy Mkydj vkx yxk;h gS vkSj vius ?kj okyksa ds fl[kkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i mlus vius eR; dkfyd esa dq'kyiky dk uke fy[kk fn;k gSA erdk ds firk us Hkh vius c;ku esa Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd e`rdk us fnukad 25-052016 dks izkr% 9-30 cts vius mij feVVh dk fNMdj vkx yxk yhA

¶41

The court below has further observed herein as under:

¶42

eR;q dkfyd dFku ds vuqlkj ftl O;fDr us ?kVuk dkfjr dh gS og O;fDr dq'kyiky iq= daojiky erdk ds ?kj ds lkeus gh jgrk gS ijUrq e`rdk ds firk ds vuqlkj muds xkWo esa dq'kyiky iq= daojiky uke ds dbZ O;fDr gS vkSj U;k;ky; esa gkftj vfHk;qDr dq'kyiky iq= daojiky muds ?kj ds lkeus ugha jgrk gSA ”

¶43

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:

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

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.

¶47

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].

¶48

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,

¶49

¶50

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.

¶51

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.

¶52

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.

¶53

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 moreso in view of the fact that more than 2 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2016.

¶54

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

¶55

¶56

recorded by the learned trial judge in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence and supported by cogent reasons.

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

Order Date :- 23.07.2018 Anand

State of U.P. v. Kushal Pal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Kushal Pal

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 Mukesh

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

State of U.P. Vs Niranjan and 2 Others

State Vs Surendra Kumar

State of U.P. Vs Gajraj and Others

State of U.P. Vs Anwar and Others