Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Anand Dixit on 4 August, 2022
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 42
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8017 of 2008
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Anand Dixit
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned AGA for the State-appellant and perused the record.
2. Present Government Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.06.2008, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No.247 of 2006 (State vs. Anand Dixit), arising out of Case Crime No.286 of 1996, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC, Police Station Ghiror, District Mainpuri, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 IPC.
3. The Prosecution story in brief is that on 06.09.1996 at about 16.30 hours the complainant- Surednra Singh and his son Gajendra Singh alias Tillu, Driver Hem Singh, Mahesh Singh Ashok Parihar, Naresh Dixit, Ex-Pradhan-Devendra Singh, Santosh Gupta and younger brother of the complainant namely Santosh were going on a jeep from Mainpuri to Village-Bebar. On the way near Railway Crossing a Gypsy and Maruti Van stood ahead of the Jeep of complainant. In this Jeep there were Ramanand, Hari Om, Anand, Devendra, Vipin Kaushalendra Pal Singh, Bhushan Singh, Ramakant and Billu, all resident of village Begar and all of them were armed with rifle and guns. They all stepped out from the vehicle and said that "AAJ IN SAB SAALO KO BHOONJ DENGE AUR BADLA LE LENGE". Hearing this complainant, Santosh Gupta, Santosh Singh and Devendra Singh stepped down from the vehicle and ran away and the aforesaid accused persons fired indiscriminately with their respective weapons upon the remaining persons who were on jeep. An old enmity was existing between the accused persons and the complainant side. Thereafter, FIR was registered and after lodging of the FIR, Investigating Officer was nominated, who after completing all the formalities submitted a chargesheet against the accused persons and thereafter the case was committed for trial.
4. In support of prosecution case PW-1-Surendra Singh, PW-2-Devendra Singh and PW-3-Santosh Gupta were produced and examined before the court below.
5. The judgment of acquittal has been passed on the ground that all three eye witnesses namely, PW-1-Surendra Singh, PW-2-Devendra Singh and PW-3-Santosh Gupta have turned hostile and they have categorically stated in their cross examinations that the accused-Anand Dixit, who is present in the Court was not present on the spot. Under such circumstances, it was found by the Trial Court that none of the allegations levelled against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 307/149 and 302/149 IPC are proved and hence the judgment of acquittal was passed.
6. Challenging the impugned judgment learned AGA has submitted that the judgment of acquittal is per se illegal as it is a case where several person died in indiscriminate firing and PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, who were eye witnesses they were somehow saved themselves from firing and seen the incident and merely because they have turned hostile their testimonies could not be rejected. Submission, therefore, is that the judgment is perverse in nature and requires deeper scrutiny and liable to be reversed.
7. We have considered the submissions and have perused the record.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take note of law on the appeal against acquittal.
9. In the case of Bannareddy and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 5 SCC 790, in paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal and in paragraph 26 it has been held that "the High Court should not have reappreciated the evidence in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial Court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities"
10. In Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka, 2021 (6) SCC 213, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to explain the limitations of exercise of power of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court.
11. In a recent judgement of this Court in Virendra Singh vs. State of UP and others, 2022 (3) ADJ 354 DB, the law on the issue involved has been considered.
12. Similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471.
13. On perusal of record we find that all three eye witnesses namely, PW-1-Surendra Singh, PW-2-Devendra Singh and PW-3-Santosh Gupta have turned hostile and they have stated in categorical terms that the accused Anand Dixit, who is present in the Court was not present on the spot. In such view of the matter, we find that the judgment of acquittal has been passed on proper appreciation of evidence on record wherein no interference is warranted by this Court. There is a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused respondent herein.
14. In view of the aforesaid, as reflected from perusal of the evidence, we find that the court below has taken a plausible and possible view of the matter on appreciation of entire evidence on record, which cannot be substituted by this Court by taking a different view as per the law discussed above.
15. Accordingly, it is not a case worth granting leave to appeal. The application for granting leave to appeal is rejected.
Re: Government Appeal
1. Consequently, since the Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) has been rejected by order of this date, the present government appeal is also dismissed.
2. It is, however, made clear that in case any criminal appeal/appeals of co-accused persons is/are pending, the rejection of this application for leave to appeal and dismissal of the Government appeal will not effect the merits of the criminal appeal/appeals filed by the co-accused persons.
Order Date :- 4.8.2022
Nitendra
