Allahabad High Court
Ram Prit Bhagat vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 May, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 4250 of 2011
Appellant :- Ram Prit Bhagat
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Appellant :- K.N. Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Sri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State on the point of admission.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. All the ingredients of the offence under Section 436 IPC have been proved by the prosecution from its evidence. Witnesses had seen the accused respondent nos. 2 and 3 committing the present offence. Trial Court misreading the prosecution evidence reached on wrong conclusion. It was also argued that accused respondents can not be acquitted merely on the ground of mistake committed by the investigating officer, if recovery memo was not prepared by the I.O, this is the fault on the part of the I.O. and on this ground statement of eyewitness account, who had seen the accused respondents committing the present offence cannot be brushed aside.
To substantiate this argument, learned counsel appearing for the appellant referred to the evidence discussed in the impugned judgment and order as well as finding arrived at by the Trial Court in it and further argued for admission of appeal.
We have considered the submissions and have gone through the entire record.
In this matter as is evident from the record that the finding of the Trial Court is that none has seen the accused respondents committing the present offence. Accused respondents were seen at the place of occurrence in the light of a burning fire. Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and order was of the opinion that the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 can not be made a ground to convict the accused respondents as the houses of the accused respondents are also situated within the same vicinity. If they were present at the place of occurrence, it shall not be presumed that they were present there after committing the offence, particularly, when motive to commit the present offence has not been proved by the prosecution, nor there was any enmity between the parties. It appears improbable and unbelievable that accused will remain present at the place of occurrence after committing the offence. If the finding arrived at by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are minutely analyzed, with the submission raised across the bar, it can not be said that any illegality and perversity has been committed by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused respondents.
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 admission of appeal is hereby refused.
Since prayer for admission of appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2022
SK Srivastava
