Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Raju on 9 June, 2016
Bench: Surendra Vikram Rathore, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- U/S 378 CR.P.C. No. - 341 of 2007
Applicant :- State Of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Raju
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.
The State is before us challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T Act, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 441/99, under Sections 376 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (12) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Inayatnagar, District Faizabad.
An appeal against the acquittal stands on a different footing from the appeal against the conviction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 has considered this difference and has observed in paragraph no. 20 and 21 as under:-
"20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasivan v. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held:
"7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal."
21. This Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative."
In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, the impugned judgment has to be considered from the point of view whether the view taken by the trial court was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits.
The learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused persons for want of reliable evidence. There was delay of nine days in the registration of the first information report and contrary explanations of the same were furnished by the witnesses. Apart from it, there was contradictions as to when the husband of the victim was informed. According to evidence of P.W.-1, the husband of the victim was informed after about 24 days, while the victim has stated that her husband has come after about 10-12 days of the incident. The learned Trial Court has also not found necessary ingredients to constitute the case under Section 3 (1) (12) S.C./S.T. Act and also found contradictions in evidence and taking cumulative effect of all the circumstances, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused person.
A criminal trial proceeds with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons. With the acquittal of the accused persons this presumption of innocence stands fortified. So very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of acquittal.
Keeping in view the aforesaid weakness of the prosecution case, as noted by the trial court, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable and not based on material on record. So we are satisfied that there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for.
Hence, the application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 9.6.2016
Monika
Case :- U/S 378 CR.P.C. No. - 341 of 2007
Applicant :- State Of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Raju
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Since, application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, therefore, appeal preferred by the State stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.6.2016
Monika
