Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Hardayal Valmiki on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4 of 2021
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Hardayal Valmiki
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. on leave to appeal.
Submission of learned A.G.A. is that prosecution was able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Although PW 1 Akhilesh, PW 2 Smt. Heera Devi, PW 3 Sapna, have not supported the prosecution case but the witness PW 8 Pushpendra @ Rahul Yadav, who had reached on the spot at the time of incident, has supported the prosecution case in toto. Referring to the medical evidence in regard to the injured witness and finding arrived at by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order, it was further argued that trial court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence in correct perspective. PW 8 Pushpendra @ Rahul Yadav reached on the spot after hearing the shrieks at the time of incident. Accused-respondent also threw acid upon his body. He sustained injuries. He was medically examined at Jhansi. Plastic Surgery was also done. These facts have been proved by the prosecution during trial. It is also argued that statement of PW 8 itself was sufficient to hold guilty to the accused-respondent. Findings of the trial court in the impugned judgment and order are perverse and illegal. Thus, prayer is made to grant leave to appeal.
We have considered the submissions made by learned A.G.A. and have perused the entire record.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, First Information Report was lodged by PW 1 Akhilesh Balmiki mentioning therein that on 02.09.2014 at about 9.30 hours accused-respondent beat PW 3 Sapna, the sister of informant. Due to this reason, blood was oozing. When informant and other witnesses came to save her, accused-respondent poured acid upon them, due to which PW 3 and other witnesses present on the spot sustained acid injuries.
In the impugned judgment and order, trial court was of the view that PW 1 Informant Akhilesh, PW 2 Smt. Heera Devi, PW 3 Sapna have not supported the prosecution case. Statement of PW 8 Pushpendra @ Rahul Yadav was also not liable to be believed because he was not sent for medical examination by the police. Name of this witness was also not disclosed in the F.I.R. as injured witness. Trial court relying on the cross examination made by the defence from this witness was also of the view that this witness did not hand over the medical papers to the Investigating Officer. Thus, the trial court was of the opinion that presence of PW 8 Pushpendra @ Rahul at the time of offence at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful.
If the findings arrived at by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order are compared with the submissions raised in the matter in consonance with the facts and evidence of the present matter, the Court is of the view that no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned judgment and order. Witness PW 8 Pushpendra @ Rahul was not sent for medical examination through the local police. He himself had gone for medical examination. He did not hand over the medical papers to the Investigating Officer during investigation. Thus, the view taken by the trial court regarding the injuries sustained by PW 8 Pushpendra @ Rahul Yadav cannot be said to be correct view.
Thus, keeping in view the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused-respondent, 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 :- 26.4.2022
ML
