Allahabad High Court
Vishwapati vs State Of Up And Another on 9 April, 2019
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 65
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13267 of 2019
Applicant :- Vishwapati
Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pathak,Manoj Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
The present criminal revision has been preferred seeking the quashing of order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (D.A.A. Act) Jhansi, whereby application moved on behalf of applicant for acquittal has been rejected, as well as entire proceedings of Special Complaint Case No.911 of 2018 (State vs. Vishwapati Pahariya) arising out of Case Crime No.448 of 1997, u/s 394 I.P.C., P.S.-Mauranipur, District-Jhansi, pending in the court of Special Judge (D.A.A. Act), Jhansi.
The only submission that has been raised by the counsel is that as the co-accused have been tried and acquitted therefore there is no justification to continue the trial of the applicant and he should also be acquitted. The counsel has been fair enough to admit that the charges against the applicant have already been framed.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
It goes without saying that the order whereby charges have been framed against the applicant has not been annexed along with this application. The facts as are before this Court by way of this application show that the trial of the applicant is already afoot and the application that was moved on behalf of applicant to acquit him without trial was clearly misconceived. The trial takes place under a set scheme of procedure as has been laid down by Criminal Procedure Code and the acquittal of co-accused, even if it has been done, is certainly no ground to record the finding of acquittal in the middle of the trial at some stage where the question of acquitting or convicting does not arise. Even otherwise the finding recorded with regard to co-accused was based on the nature of evidence produced and adduced in that trial. It is not necessary that the same evidence may be produced in the trial against the present applicant also. This Court does not want to enter into any generalized illustrations but one of such eventualities is a known thing in our experience that sometimes the witnesses turn hostile against a particular accused and he gets his acquittal. But if the co-accused is subsequently tried and evidence is produced against him, there is no reason not to look into the same. The maximum which can be said is that if the same set of witnesses are produced in another trial against another accused their testimony may be subjected to cross-examination on the basis of the testimonies produced in another trial. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence but there is no such law which may justify that just because some accused succeeds to get acquittal in some trial then all the other accused who did not appear in the court earlier should not face the trial or that they should be acquitted even without facing the trial. The prayer made in the application of the applicant was clearly misconceived. Even otherwise, the impugned order is a very well reasoned order containing all the facts and circumstances of the case and the court below was right in observing the clear distinction between the role and evidence with regard to the applicant in comparison of the role and evidence that was adduced with regard to co-accused who has been acquitted. Counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any flaw in the impugned order which reflects judicial application of mind. There is no illegality much less than any abuse of court's process which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same.
The application stands dismissed being devoid of merits.
Order Date :- 9.4.2019
M. Kumar
