Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Rajkumar Barar on 29 April, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 99 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Rajkumar Barar
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.
The present government appeal has been filed along with leave to appeal application against the impugned judgement and order dated 05.04.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2018 (State of U.P. Vs. Chuche and another), arising out of case crime no. 470 of 2017, under Sections 302, 452, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Narahat, District Lalitpur, whereby accused-respondent was acquitted.
It is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order are illegal and perverse. Trial Court illegally placing reliance upon the statement of the defence witnesses acquitted the accused respondent. In fact accused respondent had committed the present offence as is clear from the evidence adduced by the prosecution. In support of the aforesaid argument learned A.G.A. referred to the statement of the P.W.-1 Surendra, P.W.-2 Smt. Ramrani, P.W.-3 Bhupendra and P.W.-8 Prahlad Singh. It was next argued that although DVD said to have been prepared by the P.W.-8 Prahlad Singh was not playable when it was sent to the F.S.L. yet P.W.-8 had prepared it at the time when cry is said to have been made by the deceased. It is also argued that door of the room in question was in a position that it could be bolted from the outside. Finding arrived at by the trial court in this respect is also against the facts and evidence. All the circumstances established by the prosecution before the Trial Court clearly shows that the accused and accused only had committed the crime. Medical evidence fully support the prosecution case. Thus, prayer was made to grant leave to appeal.
We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned AGA.
In this matter, as is evident from record, FIR is lodged againstthe accused respondent. When prosecution examined the witnesses before the Court, P.W.-1 Surendra, P.W.-2 Smt. Ramrani, P.W.-3 Bhupendra have not supported the prosecution case. All the aforesaid witnesses have stated that when they reached at the place of occurrence, accused was not present there. They have not seen the accused committing the present offence. If the fact and evidence discussed in the impugned judgment and order are also minutely analysed it is clear that door in question was bolted from inside. If such is the position it is out of imagination that accused respondent would have committed the present offence who is said to be present outside the room. Closing of the door from the inside itself reflect that finding recorded by the Trial Court is a correct view and is in accordance with law and evidence. If the statement of P.W.-8 Prahlad Singh is also taken in to consideration, DVD said to have been prepared by P.W.-8 and sent to F.S.L. was not found in working condition. Nothing could be recovered from the said D.V.D. to support the prosecution version. Finding of the Trial Court arrived at in the impugned judgment and order is based on correct appreciation of the facts and evidence. Impugned judgement and order is well reasoned and discussed order. No interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned judgment and order. Application for leave to appeal is not liable to be allowed.
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 conclusions 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."
Further, 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."
If the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are minutely analysed with the facts, evidence and settled principle of law, no illegality, infirmity or perversity is found in it. View taken by the trial court is also a possible view. No interference in the judgment and order of the trial court is called for. Hence, prayer made in the application moved by the appellant - State of U.P. to grant leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected.
Since the application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.4.2022
Sachdeva
