Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Bhure Khan S/O Liyakat Ali And 04 ... on 27 May, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash-Vii, Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 310 of 2022
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Bhure Khan S/O Liyakat Ali And 04 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,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 9.2.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Aligarh in Sessions Trial No. 659 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Bhure Khan and others), under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr, whereby accused-respondents were 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. Though F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person and name of the accused respondents came into light during investigation, yet offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt against accused respondents. Medical evidence fully supports the oral version. 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. Accused respondents have participated in commission of 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 record, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person. Name of the accused respondents came into light during investigation. If the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 are minutely analyzed, it emerges that they have not seen the incident and even they have not recognized the assailants. PW-3 and PW-4 have not supported the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Nothing is on record to connect the accused respondents with the present matter. Prosecution case is based on informer's information on the basis of suspicion. Circumstances said to have been established by the prosecution are not so linked with each other to form an irresistible conclusion against the accused respondents to commit the present offence. On the basis of aforesaid observation, trial court acquitted the accused respondents. 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 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 :- 27.5.2022/safi
