1

Court No. - 51

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 699 of 2018

Appellant :- State Of U.P.

Respondent :- Ved Pal And Anr.

Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

Heard learned AGA on the application seeking leave to appeal

against the judgment and order dated 23.5.2018 by means of which

accused respondents have been acquitted of the offence under

Sections 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and ¾ DP Act.

Learned AGA 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 AGA at great length. We have also

perused the findings as recorded by the court concerned. Perusal of

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:-

e`rdk ds lkl llqj ?kVuk ds le; ekStwn ugha Fks rFkk os [ksr esa Fks] bl

vk'k; dk dFku Mh0MCyw03 jkexksiky ds }kjk fd;k x;k gSA tks oknh fdj.kiky dk

lxk lkyk gSA foospd ih0MCyw04 lh0vks0 Hkw"k.k oekZ ds }kjk vius c;kuksa esa ;g dFku

fd;k x;k gS fd osniky o chjks ds fo:) dksbZ lk{; i=koyh ij ugh Fkk vkSj bl

dkj.k mUgsa foospuk ds nkSjku fudky fn;k x;k FkkA blh lk{kh ds }kjk i`"B 7 ij ;g

dFku fd;k x;k gS fd e`rdk dh cgu eksfudk us eq>s crk;k Fkk fd lksfu;k ds lkl

llqj mls lgh ls j[krs gSA foospd ds }kjk bu yksxksa ds fo:) vkjksi i= U;k;ky;

esa izLrqr ugh fd;k x;kA U;k;ky; ds }kjk /kkjk 319 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr nksuks gh

vfHk;qDrx.k osniky o chjks dks fopkj.k gsrq ryc fd;k x;kA i=koyh ij lEiw.kZ

2

lk{; vfHk;qDr lej iky ds fo:) izLrqr dh x;h gSA osniky o chjks ds fo:) bl

vk'k; dh lk{; ugh gS fd muds }kjk e`rdk dh e`R;q dkfjr djus esa Hkkx fy;k x;k

gksA e`rdk lksfu;k ds lkl llqj o`) O;fDr gSa] ftUgsa lUnsg dk ykHk fn;k tk ldrk

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

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 a