Madhai vs. State Of U.P.& Ors.

Court No. - 53

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 6106 of 2011

Appellant :- Madhai Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This appeal has been filed against the judgement and order dated 17.9.2011 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Fatehpur in Session Trial No.146 of 2009 (State Versus Phool Singh Yadav and others) whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents no.2 to 5 for the offence punishable under sections 364-A/34, 323/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bindki, District Fatehpur.

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When the kidnapee / abductee boy Phool Singh was examined before the trial court, he has clearly and categorically supported the prosecution case. He was taken from his house by the accused-respondents closing his eyes in a marshal jeep. Thereafter, he was kept in a hotel. Boy was not aware about the place where he was kept. When he became ill, he was sent back by the hotel owner. It is further submitted that statement of abductee boy was recorded by the Magistrate concerned after his recovery in which he has also supported the prosecution case. Findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order are perverse and illegal and are based on conjectures and surmises. Referring to the findings of the trial court recorded in the impugned judgement and order as well as the evidence discussed in it and adduced by the prosecution in support of its case, prayer was made by the learned counsel for the appellant to admit the appeal.

We have considered the submissions and have gone through the entire record.

In this matter, as is evident from the record, the kidnapee boy Phool Singh (P.W.3) himself has admitted in examination-inchief before the court concerned that he was working in a hotel for about one year and six months where he met with a constable who became familiar with him, but he did not disclose the fact, as narrated in the first information report. Prosecution has also examined P.W.1 - Madhai, the informant and P.W.2 Chandra Pal. If the statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are minutely analyzed in light of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant, finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order cannot be termed to be illegal or perverse. It appears improbable and unbelievable that an abductee, who was aged about 14 years and was working in a hotel for about one and a half year, did not disclose the fact regarding his abduction / kidnapping to any one or even to the police constable who had met him at hotel and became familiar with him.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Govindaraju Versus

State of Karnataka, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 315 has

held as under.

"It is a settled legal proposition that in exceptional circumstances, the appellate court, for compelling reasons, should not hesitate to reverse a judgment of acquittal passed by the court below, if the findings so recorded by the court below are found to be perverse i.e if the conclusions arrived at by the court below are contrary to the evidence on record, or if the court's entire approach with respect to dealing with the evidence is found to be patently illegal, leading to the miscarriage of justice, or if its judgment is unreasonable and is based on an erroneous understanding of the law and of the facts of the case. While doing so, the appellate court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and also that an acquittal by the court below bolsters such presumption of innocence."

Further, in the case of Gangabhavani Versus Rayapati Venkat

Reddy and Others, (2013) 15 Supreme Court Cases 298,

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under.

"This Court has persistently emphasised that there are limitations while interfering with an order against acquittal. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the lower Court bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference in a routine manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for interference."

Similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court in Bannareddy & others Versus State of Karnataka & others, 2018 0 Supreme (SC) 291.

If the observations recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order are minutely analyzed in light of the submissions raised by learned counsel for the appellant in consonance with the evidence discussed by the trial court, we are of the view that the findings arrived at by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order need no interference. Thus, on close scrutiny of entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and comparing the same with the finding recorded by the trial court, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court in the impugned judgement and order is a possible view. The impugned judgment and order based on critical analysis of evidence adduced by the parties is well reasoned and discussed order.

Thus, Appeal, having no merit, is not liable to be allowed and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date: - 13.5.2022 $SS$