Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ravi Gautam S/O Prem Chandra And 3 ... on 26 May, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 241 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Ravi Gautam S/O Prem Chandra And 3 Others
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 11.01.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Ravi Gautam and others), under Sections 498-A, 307, 354, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, whereby accused-respondents were acquitted.
It is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that findings arrived at by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order are perverse and illegal. P.W.-1 Smt. Munesh, the victim, has clearly supported the prosecution case. Medical evidence also support the oral version. Referring to the statement of P.W.-2 Babli and P.W.-3 Brijesh Kumar, it was further argued that these witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. Finding of the Trial Court to the extent that there are major contradictions on the point of manner of the incident stated by the victim is false and against the evidence. To substantiate the aforesaid argument, learned A.G.A. referred to the evidence discussed in the impugned judgment and order as well as finding arrived at by the Trial Court and further argued that leave to appeal be granted.
We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned AGA.
In this matter, as is evident from record, victim when examined during trial has stated that on 15.04.2016 accused respondents attempted to commit the murder of the victim pouring kerosene oil upon her. When she was cross examined she stated that accused respondents tried to tighten the neck of the victim. It is also evident from the impugned judgment and order that on 16.04.2016 victim was ousted from the in-laws house. She was medically examined on 19.04.2016. Duration of the injury is shown as 2-3 hours. On this basis, Trial Court was of the view that medical evidence does not support the oral version.
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 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 :- 26.5.2022
Sachdeva
