1

Court No. - 51

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 90 of 2018

Applicant :- Smt. Malti Devi

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.

Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Dubey,Ram Milan Dwivedi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

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

18.7.2018 by means of which accused respondents have been acquitted

of the offence under Section 394 IPC even they have been convicted

under Sections 452, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC.

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 heard learned counsel for the applicant at great length.

We have also perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned.

Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the court concerned

while returning the verdict of acquittal has recorded a number of

categorical findings, relevant of which are being extracted herein as

under:-

tgkW rd iz'u vfHk;qDRkx.k ds }kjk ifjoknh dh tsc ls 500 :i;s fudkyus o

ekyrh ds xys ls eaxylw= Nhu ysus dk gS rks bl lEcU/k esa rF; ds xokgksa us ;g rks

dgk gS fd ifjoknh jkedqekj dh tsc ls 500 :i;s o ekyrh ds xys ls eaxylw= lksus

dk Nhu fy;k] ijUrq mDr ds lanHkZ esa rF; ds rhuksa xokgksa ds c;ku fo'oluh; ugha

2

gSA pawfd rhuksa xokgksa us vius c;kuksa esa o izkFkZuki= izn'kZ d&1 esa Li"V :i ls ;g

ugha crk;k gS fd fdl uke ds vfHk;qDr us ekyrh ds xys ls eaxylw= Nhuk vkSj fdl

uke ds vfHk;qDr us oknh eqdnek dh tsc ls 500 :i;s fudkys gks] o eaxylw= Nhuk

gks vfHk;kstu dk ;g dFkkud lafnX/k gSA pwafd oknh eqdnek dh iq=o/kw ih0MCyw01

ekyrh us viuh ftjg esa ekuk fd eSaus ;g ugha ns[kk fd eqfYtekuksa us iSls fdl tsc ls

fudkys FksA lk{kh ih0MCyw02 losUnz us Hkh vius eq[; c;ku esa ;g Li"V ugha fd;k gS

fd ekjihV ds nkSjku fdl vfHk;qDr us oknh eqdnek jkedqekj dh tsc ls 500 :i;s

fudkysA bl xokg us Hkh vius c;ku esa ;g Li"V ugha fd;k fd fdl uke ds vfHk;qDr

us mldh cgu ekyrh ds xys ls eaxylw= Nhu fy;kA

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 ar