Court No. - 51

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 408 of 2018

Appellant :- State Of U.P.

Respondent :- Ramesh Alias Pyara And 7 Ors.

Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

Counsel for Respondent :- Birendra Singh Khokher

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

Heard Shri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA on the application seeking leave to

appeal against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2017 by means of which all

the accused – respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under

section 147, 148, 302/149, 506 and 120-B of IPC.

Learned A.G.A. 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.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it crystallizes that in the present

case two persons namely Dharamvir and Vipin have been done to death in the

alleged incident.

Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the wife of Dharamvir

has been examined as P.W. 1 and she has not supported the case of the

prosecution, similarly Ramveer who happens to be the father of the second

deceased-Vipin has been examined as P.W. 2 and he has also not supported the

case of the prosecution, the other witness Pinki who happens to be the wife of

the deceased Vipin has been examined as P.W. 3 and she has also not supported

the case of the prosecution and thus, contention is that there is nothing on record

which may show participation of the accused-respondent in the alleged crime.

We have perused the impugned judgment. Perusal of the judgment dated

31.10.2017 shows that the concerned court has recorded categorical findings

after perusing the entire evidence on record.

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 held as under:

11. Before we proceed further to peruse the finding of the High Court, it is

relevant to discuss the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering

in an appeal against acquittal. It is well settled principle of law that the High

Court should not interfere in the well reasoned order of the trial court which has

been arrived at after proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court should

give due regard to the findings and the conclusions reached by the trial court

unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can

dislodge the findings itself. This principle has further been elucidated in the case

of Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11

SCC 186, para 13, wherein this Court observed that: "The High Court will

interfere in appeals against acquittals, only where the trial court makes wrong

assumptions of material facts or fails to appreciate the evidence properly. If two

views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the

accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse

the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had

it tried the case. The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the

prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and

consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

12. It is not in dispute that the presumption of innocence is further reinforced,

reaffirmed and strengthened against the acquitted accused by the judgment in his

favor. [Vide Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh vs. Republic of India, (2011) 2

SCC 490 in para. 94].

27. Keeping in