1

Court No. - 51

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C

(LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 282 of 2018

Applicant :- Manoj

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.

Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Singh Kushwaha

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant on the application

seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated

12.6.2018 by means of which the accused respondents have

been acquitted Sessions Trial No. 477 of 2011.

Learned counsel for the applicant has strongly pressed

the application with the contention that the prosecution

evidence has not been appreciated by the court concerned in

its correct perspective. He has submitted that the finding of

acquittal recorded by learned trial judge is against the evidence

on record. He next submitted that the learned trial judge 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

the reasonable doubt.

We have perused the findings as recorded by the court

below in the impugned judgment, some relevant of which are

extracted herein below:

“ihfM+rk dk vius c;ku esa ;g Li"V dFku gS

fd vfHk;qDrx.k tc mlds ?kj ds vUnj vk;s rks

vfHk;qDrx.k us mlds ?kj dk njoktk vUnj ls can

dj fn;k Fkk dqUMh ugha yxk;k Fkk vkSj u gh dksbZ

eqyfte njokts ij pkSdlh dj jgk Fkk vkSj

eqyfteku us vkrs gh ihfM+rk dks 3&4 FkIiM ekjs

vkSj mlds lkFk cnrehth fd;k vkSj vfHk;qDr

fctsUnz us vius diMs mrkjdj mlds lkFk cqjk dke

djuk pkgkA bl Lrj ij ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd

vfHkq;Drx.k us ihfM+rk ds dFkukuqlkj loZizFke

vkdj ihfM+rk dks 3&4 FkIiM ekjs ,oa mls [khap dj

tehu ij fyVk fn;s vkSj cqjk dke djus dk iz;kl

2

fd;s ijUrq bl Lrj ij ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ;fn

vfHk;qDrx.k dk vk'k; ihfM+rk ds lkFk cykRdkj

djus dk jgk gksrk rks vfHk;qDrx.k LokHkkfod :i ls

ihfM+rk ds ?kj esa ?kqlus ds ckn ihfM+rk ds ?kj ds

njokts dh dqUMh vUnj ls cUn djds vFkok rhu

vfHk;qDrx.k esa ls dksbZ ,d vfHk;qDr ihfM+rk ds

njokts ij pkSdlh ds fy, [kMk gksrkA ihfM+rk dk

ftl izdkj ;g dFku gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us ?kj ds

vUnj vkrs gh mldks 3&4 FkIiM ekjk] blls ;g

ckr ifjyf{kr gksrh gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k tcju

ihfM+rk ds ?kj esa ?kqls vkSj ihfM+rk ds lkFk ekjihV

fd;s vkSj ekjihV ds vuqdze esa vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk

ihfM+rk dh yTtk dk /;ku ugha j[kk x;k vkSj mlds

diMs vLrO;Lr gks x;sA ijUrq ihfM+rk ds Lo;a ds

dFkukuqlkj ;g ckr lkfcr ugha gksrh gS fd

vfHk;qDrx.k us ihfM+rk ds lkFk cykRdkj djus dk

dksbZ iz;kl fd;k gksA cykRlax ds iz;kl rFkk vHknz

geyk ds chp foHkktu js[kk dkQh ladh.kZ gksrh gSA

fpfdRldh; lk{; vFkok ihfM+rk dk ,slk dksbZ lk{;

ugha gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k us vFkok fdlh ,d vfHk;qDr

us ihfM+rk ds izkbZosV Hkkx esa vius izkbZosV Hkkx dks

yxkus dk vFkok vUnj djus dk dksbZ iz;kl fd;k

gks ftlesa ihfM+rk dh lkl o uun ds vk tkus ls

ck/kk iMh gksA bl dkj.k ihfM+rk ds Lo;a ds

lk{; ,oa mDr of.kZr foospuk ls U;k;ky; dk ;g

fu"d"kZ gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) ihfM+rk ds lkFk

/kkjk 376@511 Hkk0n0la0 ds rgr cykRdkj dk

iz;kl dk vijk/k ugha curk””

After perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the

trial court after a thorough marshalling of 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 and the findings recorded by the learned

trial judge in the impugned judgment are based upon evidence

and supported by cogent reasons.

It is an established position of law that if the court below

has taken a view which is a possible view in a reasonable

manner, then the same shall not be interfered with.

At this stage, reference may be made to the recent

judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of

Bannareddy & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors

reported in 2018 (5) SCC 790 wherein the Apex Court has

3

held as under:

11. Before we proceed further to pe