Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Popendra Singh

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2018GOVA/818/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The division bench dismissed the State's government appeal and rejected the application for leave to appeal against an acquittal order. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding the principle that acquittals should not be disturbed unless the trial court made wrong assumptions or failed to appreciate evidence, the court held that no case for interference was made out.

What did the court decide?

Application seeking leave to appeal rejected; appeal dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Popendra Singh — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 818 of 2014 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Popendra Singh Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶2

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

¶3

Heard Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate on the application seeking leave to appeal and perused the record.

¶4

The present government appeal has been filed along with an application for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 1, Aligarh in S.T. No. 556 of 2012 whereby accused-respondent, Popendra Singh has been acquitted for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 376, 506, 504 IPC, P.S. Vijaygarh, District Aligarh.

¶5

It may be noted here that victim Smt. Sailesh Devi has filed Criminal Misc. Application u/s 372 CrPC (Leave to Appeal) No.5 of 2014 which has been dismissed today itself vide order of date i.e. 31.7.2018.

¶6

We have perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the court concerned while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded a number of categorical findings, relevant of which have already been discussed in Criminal Misc. Application u/s 372 CrPC (Leave to Appeal) No.5 of 2014.

¶7

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:

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

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].

¶11

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.

¶12

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 .

¶13

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.

¶14

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 with moreso in view of the fact that more than 4 years have already elapsed as the incident is of the year 2014.

¶15

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.

¶16

No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 31.7.2018 M/A.Ravi

State of U.P. v. Popendra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Popendra Singh

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

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shyam Ji @ Avneesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

State of U.P. Vs Raju and Others

Vishal Srivastava and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Virendra Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Another