State Of Uttarakhand vs Mohd. Usman
2022 Latest Caselaw 2212 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


                      SPLA No. 122 of 2020

                                  With

              Government Appeal No. 77 of 2020

State of Uttarakhand              ................              Appellant

                                  versus

Mohd. Usman                       ................            Respondent



Mr. J.S.Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellant.
                              -----------

                    Judgement dated: 21.07.2022

Hon'ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the following Order.

1. By filing an application for Special Leave to Appeal, the State of Uttarakhand has assailed the judgment of acquittal of the private respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Sessions Trial No. 94 of 2013, by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar, District Haridwar.

2. The defect of not filing translated copy of the impugned judgement is ignored for the time being. Appropriate order shall be passed requiring the State to file the translated copy of

the judgment, as and when this Court required the same.

3. Heard Mr. J. S. Virk, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant on the question to Leave to Appeal against acquittal.

4. It's apparent from the record that the case of the prosecution is based entirely upon the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance is the Call Detail Record between the private respondent and wife of the deceased in between 21.01.04.2012 to 02.05.2012. It is also apparent from the record that such Call Detail Report has been read into evidence without proving the certificate as required under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act, 1872, so that the circumstantial evidence is not admissible.

5. The second circumstance is that Asha Thapa had a conversation with the deceased on 26.04.2012 and thereafter, he again talked with the present respondent. Such circumstance is not a very conclusive in nature. The 3rd circumstance is that the deceased revealed before the PW2 Rajesh Kumar Saini that his wife Asha Thapa has left her company once and twice previously also and PW4 Dhanveer Thapa stated that he heard that there was illicit relationship between the wife of the deceased Asha Thapa and the present respondent. So the last two circumstances are based on hearsay evidence, and therefore, is not admissible. Thus, learned District Judge has rightly come

to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond the reasonable doubts as the chain of circumstances has not been completed by the prosecution.

6. Having considered all this, the learned Sessions Judge, Haridwar has come to the appropriate conclusion after considering the existing evidence available on record. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no substantial and compelling ground, prima facie, to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal. Thus, it is not a case which comes within the purview of four corners of consideration as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghure Lal vs. State of U.P. (2008) 10 SCC 450 case. Hence, we are not inclined to grant Special Leave to Appeal.

7. Since the SPLA has been dismissed and the Court has rejected the Leave to Appeal, the Government Appeal is also not maintainable and the same is dismissed.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) (S.K.Mishra, J.)

Kaushal