Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3045 (ALL)

State Of U. P. v. Manoj Vishkarma

2016-09-06

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Shashi Kant, J. 1. We have heard learned AGA for the State-appellant and perused the trial court's judgment on record. 2. This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 5.2.2010, passed in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2009, State Vs. Manoj Kumar Vishkarma and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 434 of 2007, under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Jhagha , District Gorakhpur by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. Court no. 11, Gorakhpur whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the offence punishable under the sections referred to above. 3. From perusal of the record, it transpires that on the basis of an application filed by the informant Smt. Meera Devi under section 156(3) Cr.P..C in the court of Judicial Magistrate Court no. 23, Gorakhpur, an F. I.R. was registered against the accused respondents no. 1, 2 and 3, who happen to be the husband, father in law and mother in law of the victim Smt. Meera Devi respectively. A perusal of the record reveals that the main allegation of harassment for dowry and forcing the victim to undergo abortion was made against the accused respondents. 4. The record further reveals that in the present case the victim (P.W.1), who was the wife of the accused respondent no. 1, in her testimony has deposed that she was married to accused respondent no. 1, Manoj Vishwakarma on 26.5.2004 according to Hindu Rites and has further very categorically admitted that neither any demand for dowry was ever made by the accused respondents nor she was ever beaten by her husband nor ever taken to the hospital for carrying out abortion. In a nutshell, she has stated that neither her in laws including her husband ever harassed her for demand of any dowry nor forced her to undergo abortion nor she had ever made any complaint/application to the Magistrate or to the concerned police authority, she further states that she is living with her husband in a cordial atmosphere. This witness (P.W.1) was declared hostile. Likewise, the P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 namely Smt. Surariya and Gurdari, who happens to be the mother and father of the victim respectively, have also not supported the prosecution story and they were also declared hostile. This witness (P.W.1) was declared hostile. Likewise, the P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 namely Smt. Surariya and Gurdari, who happens to be the mother and father of the victim respectively, have also not supported the prosecution story and they were also declared hostile. All the prosecution witnesses of fact have turned hostile. 5. It is settled law that mere declaration of any witness hostile will not completely wash out or efface the evidence of such witnesses. The evidence remains admissible but it should be corroborated by some other reliable evidence. In the present case, even after cross examination of the hostile witnesses by the prosecution, no material could be elicited to show either to establish the prosecution case or to show the complicity of the accused respondents in the commission of the alleged crime .There is no evidence worth the name to connect the accused respondents to the crime. Thus, there is no evidence at all against the accused respondents to hold them guilty and, consequently, they were acquitted of the charges framed against them. The record further reveals that there is not even a single iota of evidence against the accused respondents even then the State has chosen to file the present appeal against their acquittal in a mechanical manner. 6. Learned Government Advocate vehementally argued the matter but he failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial court while passing the impugned judgement and order of acquittal in favour of the accused respondents. 7. On a careful perusal of the judgment and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgment and order. On the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant and the application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and, consequently the appeal also stands dismissed with costs. 8. Before parting with the case, we must express the deep concern of this court at the lighthearted and routine manner in which this appeal has been filed. 8. Before parting with the case, we must express the deep concern of this court at the lighthearted and routine manner in which this appeal has been filed. This case is a glaring example how the Government appeals are being filed in a very cryptic, casual and mechanical manner without application of mind. This court has failed to understand as to why the present Government Appeal has been filed by the State Authority despite non availability of any evidence to substantiate the charges framed against the accused respondents. It is notable that victim (wife of respondent no.1) has categorically admitted that she is living with her husband happily in a cordial atmosphere and she has no grievance at all against her in laws. 9. It is not the first time that this Court has expressed such concern as even earlier also, this Court had deprecated the practice of filing frivolous Government Appeals. In this regard, we would like to refer to the extract of our order passed in Government Appeal no. 2733 of 2010, State of U.P. Vs. Sikandar Singh, wherein we have made following observations on this very aspect. "Before we part with the case we must express deep concern over the manner in which the State Government file appeals against the acquittal. In the present case, there was no evidence worth the name, all the witnesses were declared hostile, but still the Government has chosen to file the present appeal. We have also noticed that large number of such appeals are being filed against the judgements and orders of acquittal without application of mind. Such practice is unsound and should be deprecated in no uncertain language. We hope that State Government would be more vigilant and diligent in filing the Government Appeals, so that public exchequer and valuable time of the Court may not be wasted. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, U.P. as well as Legal Remembrancer, U.P. for their consideration." 10. This is yet another instance to illustrate how frivolous and merit-less appeals are being filed by the State in a casual manner. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, U.P. as well as Legal Remembrancer, U.P. for their consideration." 10. This is yet another instance to illustrate how frivolous and merit-less appeals are being filed by the State in a casual manner. We have also noticed that a large number of such appeals are being filed against the judgements and orders of acquittal without application of mind and in many genuine matters the Government appeals are not being preferred by the State Government before this court for the reasons best known to it. 11. The State Government should make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigations. Vexatious and unnecessary litigations have been clogging the wheels of justice for too long imposing unnecessary burden on the courts, making it difficult to provide needy and speedy justice to the litigants. 12. In view of the above, we are of the view that a drastic step should be taken against the erring officers who are responsible for granting sanction for filing such frivolous Government Appeals. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions of the learned Government Advocate, this court is of the view that while dismissing the present appeal, exemplary costs should also be imposed in order to deprecate such practice and eradicate the evil. 14. Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the State Government to pay cost to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) within four weeks from today to the Advocate Association of High Court, Allahabad through Registrar General of this Court. The State Government after depositing the amount within the stipulated period, may, if it considers necessary, hold an inquiry into the matter to find out as to who were responsible for sanctioning the filing of the present Government Appeal. Thereafter the State Government, may, recover the amount so deposited from the Officers who are found responsible in this regard. 15. It is made clear that any observation made herein above should not be taken as an observation against the Government Advocate or any Addl. Government Advocate, Allahabad. 16. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, UP as well as the Legal Remembrencer, U.P. for their information and necessary compliance through fax and speed post forthwith.