Appeal against acquittal dismissed. High Court held trial court's view was reasonable and findings supported by evidence; prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Leave to appeal refused.
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.
1
Court No. - 51 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7776 of 2006 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Shyam Pal And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State on the application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2006, passed by the Session Judge, Budaun, in Session Trial No.512 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No.121 of 2001 (Criminal Case No. 89 of 2003), under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Moosajhag, District Badaun, by means of which the present accused-respondents namely Shyam Pal, Vidya Ram, Tika and Damber, have been acquitted of the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34, IPC.
We have heard Sri Rajesh Mishra, counsel for the applicant at length and perused the record also. Keeping in view the contention as has been raised at the Bar of this Court and the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, this Courts finds that the court concerned has given cogent reasons for arriving at the finding based upon which the verdict of acquittal has been returned. The court has given categorical finding to the effect that the two witnesses of facts have been produced and both of the injured witnesses are the real brothers. However, trial court has appreciated that even though it has been stated by the witness Kuwar Pal that lathi injury were caused, either no lathi injury was found on the person of any of the injured. The relevant finding based upon which the verdict of acquittal has been returned are being extracted herein below:-
"…........The witnesses also say that they climbed up to the roof and blood had fallen on the staircase and on the roof but no bleed stain earth has been taken in
2
to possession by the investigating officer. Similar by the injured Om Pal P.W.2 says that his cloths were fully dripped with blood and they were given to the investigating officer but there is no memo of taking cloths on the record, rather it has come in the evidence that the injured persons told the investigating officer that their cloths had been washed by their family members. P.W.1 Kunwar Pal has stated that 10 minutes after the incident his uncle and sister took the other injured Om Pal down from the roof while injured Om Pal P.W.2 says that he come down of his own and no other person assisted him.
….........From the aforesaid discussion it is manifestly obvious that the place of in incident has been charged by the witnesses. Further, there are material contradiction in their statements and the entrusted statements do not inspire any confidence.......”
After perusal of the impugned judgment which 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.
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.
At this stage, 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
3
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,
4
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 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 :- 17.11.2018/VKG
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a reasoned order of acquittal where the trial court has taken a possible view based on evidence.
Whether the trial court has made wrong assumptions of material facts or failed to appreciate evidence properly to warrant interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors.Explained¶12
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 MaharashtraExplained¶14
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¶15
Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 · Who else cites this
Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶19
Sanmwat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1961 SC 715
Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶19
Murlidhar @ Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka
Basappa Vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶19
Basappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Ashok Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶19
Ashok Rai Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P.Referred¶19
Ramesh Harijan vs. State of U.P.
Murugesan v. State through Inspector of PoliceReferred¶19
Murugesan v. State through Inspector of Police reported in 2012 AIR SCW 5627 · Who else cites this
State Of U.P.
Shyam Pal
Vidya Ram
Tika
Damber
Vipin Sinha
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
