1

Court No. - 51

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 407 of 2018

Appellant :- State Of U.P.

Respondent :- Rohit Kalia And 2 Ors.

Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

Counsel for Respondent :- Ajit Kumar

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

Heard Shri Yogeshwar Rai learned AGA on the application

seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated

9.11.2017 by means of which accused respondents have been

acquitted for the offence punishable under section 148, 302 IPC read

with Section 149, 201 read with Section 149, 120B IPC. We have also

heard Sir Ajit Kumar learned counsel for the respondents.

Even though learned A.G.A. has strongly pressed the

application but he has not been able to point out any illegality or

perversity with the findings as recorded by the court concerned. The

findings as recorded by the court concerned are based on evidence on

record and the court concerned has given cogent reasons and

thereafter the court concerned has concluded herein as under:-

“vr% mijksDr fof/k O;oLFkkvksa ds izdk'k esa mijksDr foospuk ls ;g fu"d"kZ

fudyrk gS fd izdj.k ds vfUre n`'; ds lk{kh ih Mcyw&6 us vfHk;qDrx.k dk uke

ugh fy;k gS rFkk ih Mcyw&3 us eklh glu ds ctk; ;klh glu uke crk;k rFkk

jkfgr dkfy;k dk uke gh ugh fy;k gSA 'ko foPNsnu djus okus fpfdRld }kjk ;g

dgk x;k gS fd e`rd ds 'kjhj ij vk;h pksVs fdlh ds ekjus ls ugh vkrh ;g pksV

fdlh nq?kZVuk esa vk ldrh gSA ih Mcyw&5 lkfcj dk c;ku lUnsg mRiUu djrk gSA

bl izdkj ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh J`a[kyk ls ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudyrk gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k ds }

kjk gh ekuoh; vf/klEHkkouk ds vUrxZr vijk/k dkfjr fd;k gS izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;kW

fu.kkZ;d Lo:i ugh gSA ifjLFkfrtU; lk{kh dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks Hkyh Hkkafr lkfcr ugha

fd;k x;k gSA”

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

2

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 view the facts and circumstances of

the case, we hold that the prosecution was not

able to establish the guilt of the accused persons

beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the High Court

should not have re-appreciated evidences in its

entirety, especially when there existed no grave

infirmity in the findings of