Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ujala Maurya D/O Hridya Narayan ... on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 270 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ujala Maurya D/O Hridya Narayan Maurya
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
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 4.2.2022 passed by Special Sessions Judge (POCSO Act), Azamgarh in Session Trial No. 230 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Ujala Maurya), Case Crime No. 20 of 2019, under Sections 302/34, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Mehnazpur, District Azamgarh, 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 judgement and order are illegal and perverse. Offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused respondents. Trial Court has committed manifest error in appreciating the evidence available on record and has failed to properly appreciate the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Death of deceased was unnatural. Her dead body was found in the khandhar of Chhote Lal Gupta. Prosecution has proved the motive against the accused respondent to commit the present offence. Other witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have also supported the prosecution case. Though none has seen the incident, yet present offence was committed by the accused respondent due to illicit relations between accused respondent and one Satyendra. All the circumstances are so linked with each order to form an irresistible conclusion against the accused respondent to the commit the present offence. It is thus submitted that the judgement and order of the trial Court is not sustainable and the State begranted leaveto file appeal in order to challenge the impugned judgement and order.
We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned AGA.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, initially missing report was lodged. On recovery of the dead body of the deceased, case was converted into the offence under Section 302/34 and 201 IPC. Though accused respondent was found aged about 16 years yet trial proceeded in children Court. If the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 are minutely analyzed in light of arguments advanced by the learned AGA, certainly present prosecution was started against the accused respondent on the basis of suspicion. Suspicion how so strong cannot place as proof. There is no direct evidence to connect the accused respondent with the present matter. On the basis of aforesaid observation, trial court acquitted the accused respondent. 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."
Similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in Bannareddy & others vs. State of Karnataka & others, 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 291.
If the findings recorded by the trial Court in the impugned judgement 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 judgement 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 :- 26.5.2022
safi
