Allahabad High Court
Mool Chandra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 11 April, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 50 of 2017
Applicant :- Mool Chandra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Shri Arun Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against judgment and order dated 27.02.2017, passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Hamirpur in Complaint Case No.97/2007 (Mool Chandra Vs. Kamta Prasad and others), under Section 395 IPC, Police Station Lalpura, District Hamirpur whereby the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted from the charge under Section 395 IPC.
Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that since police did not register the First Information Report, a complaint was filed before the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Hamirpur against 04 named and some unknown persons. Complainant examined the witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were summoned to face trial. The trial court, vide the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused-respondents on insufficient grounds. Although tractor in question was also belonging to accused-respondent No.3, yet it was in possession of the appellant. Accused-respondents had also looted the currency amount as well as jewellery. This fact had been proved by the prosecution witnesses before the trial court but the trial court did not appreciate the same in correct manner and reached on a wrong conclusion. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the finding arrived at by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order and further argued that the prosecution case was supported with the statement of appellant, and PW 2-Smt. Uma, wife of the complainant, PW 3 - Shikha, daughter of the complainant. They were the best witnesses. Incident took place inside the house. Thus, the statements of witnesses examined in the matter were sufficient to hold that respondents and respondents only had committed the offence. Thus, it was argued that the findings arrived at by the Trial court in the impugned judgment and order are perverse and illegal. Thus, prayer was made to grant leave to appeal.
We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and perused the entire record carefully.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, it is undisputed fact that the tractor in question was in joint ownership in the name of the appellant as well as the accused-respondent No.3. If the facts mentioned in the complaint as well as statement of the witnesses made before the trial court are taken into consideration, then the offence under Section 395 IPC is not attracted in the present matter. If the tractor in question was taken away by the respondent No.3 (the co-owner), offence under Section 395 IPC cannot be leveled against the co-owner. As far as other allegations leveled in the statement of witnesses are concerned, the same are not supported with independent witnesses. Witnesses examined in the matter are family members of the complainant. Trial court while passing the impugned judgment and order was of the view that witnesses examined in the matter are interested witnesses. They have not given details of the currency notes said to have been looted by the accused -respondents. Incident took place in the day hours. None of the neighbours had come to witness the incident.
If the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are compared with the facts and evidence of the present matter as well as the findings arrived at by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order, the view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Thus, keeping in view the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused, 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 illogical and improbable.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 SCC 315 has held as under :
"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e. if the conclusion arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."
In Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others, (2013) 15 SCC 298, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."
Hence, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is hereby refused and the application is rejected.
Since prayer for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.4.2022
ML
