Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2860 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Krishna Pal

2015-09-11

VIPIN SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Vipin Sinha, J. Heard Sri N.B. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the accused-respondents and perused the record. 2. It has been contended that the A.C.J.M., Baghpat has found the accused persons guilty and as such he had convicted and sentenced all the respondents under Section 420 I.P.C. five years R.I. Each, under Section 468 I.P.C. five years R.I. Each and under Section 471 I.P.C. five years R.I. Each and further 2000/-rupees fine to each of the accused respondents. Aggrieved against which the accused respondents had filed an appeal being appeal no. 17 of 1996, under Sections 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. in which the lower appellate court while passing the judgement and order dated 10.11.1997 has acquitted all the respondents aggrieved against which order dated 10.11.1997 of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. 3. A bare perusal of the record shows that the lower appellate court has given an elaborate findings after discussing the entire evidence on record has observed as under: **esjs fopkj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k ds bl rdZ esa cy gS fd bl ckr dh iqf"V foospuk vf/kdkjh dks viuh lk{; ls djuh pkfg;s Fkh vkSj ml fLFkfr esa tc ih0MCyw0&2 jkeflag us vius lk{; esa dgh Hkh bl ckr dk ftdz Hkh ugha fd;k fd mlds fu'kku vaxwWBs eftLVªsV ds lkeus fy;s x;s Fks rks dsoy 161 na0iz0la0 ds c;ku esa ;k foospukf/kdkjh dh dsl Mk;jh esa bl ckr ds bUnzkt ls ;g ckr izekf.kr ugh gks tk;sxh rc rd eftLVªsV] foospukf/kdkjh] vaxwWBk nsus okys esa ls fdlh ,d }kjk vaxwWBk fy;s tkus dks lk{; }kjk izekf.kr u fd;k tk;sA bl vk/kkj ij Hkh esjs fopkj ls bl fo'ks"kK dh jk; ij Hkjkslk djds vfHk;qDrx.k dks nafMr djuk fdlh "h izdkj lqjf{kr ugha gks ldrkA** 4. The lower appellate court has further observed as under: **vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls tks muds uke ds nkf[ky [kkfjt ds dkxtkr nkf[ky gq, gSa muls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k nkf[ky [kkfjt dk eqdnek cksMZ vkWQ jsosU;w rd thr pqds gSA jkeflag ds }kjk cksMZ vkWQ jsosU;w esa vknsf'kr gqvk gS fd mudh vihy ,MfeV gksus ds Hkh ;ksX; ugha gSA [kljk [krkSuh ls Hkh Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds uke dk bUnzjkt [kljk [krkSuh esa gks pqdk gSA mijksDr rdksZ ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gwW fd vihykFkhZx.k dh viyh Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gS vkSj fo}ku vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV ¼ckxir½ }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; o vkns'k ftlds }kjk vihykFkhZx.k dks nafMr fd;k x;k gS] [kf.Mr gksus ;ksX; gS rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k 'kadk dk ykHk ikus ds vf/kdkjh gS vkSj mu ij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa ls eqDr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** 5. Perusal of the judgment and order dated 10.11.1997 shows that the lower appellate court has recorded categorical findings after perusing the entire evidence on record. 6. The lower appellate court has recorded categorical findings with regard to the complexes/contradictions available on record and ultimately the court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus the accused-respondents have been acquitted 7. It is not being disputed that the stand taken by the lower appellate court is duly supported by the evidence on record and it cannot be said that the view taken by the lower appellate court is absolutely perverse or illegal. 8. However, be as it may, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the lower appellate court is not possible and thus the judgment of the lower appellate court cannot be interfered with by this Court only on account of the fact that another view is possible. 9. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by learned lower appellate court is against the evidence on record. He next submitted that the learned lower appellate court has committed a patent error of law and ignored the material evidence on record while holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 10. I have heard learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment. He next submitted that the learned lower appellate court has committed a patent error of law and ignored the material evidence on record while holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 10. I have heard learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment. Learned lower appellate court after a thorough marshalling the facts of the case and a microscopic scrutiny of the evidence on record has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused-respondents. The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate court in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence and supported by cogent reasons. 11. Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the lower appellate court and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by lower appellate court is a perverse view. 12. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused and the application itself is dismissed. In view of the order of date passed on the application for grant of leave to appeal, this appeal is also dismissed.