Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 426 of 2018 Applicant :- Mewa Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Abhai Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Abhay Saxena, learned counsel for applicant/appellant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the lower court record summoned at the admission stage.
The instant appeal has been filed by first informant against impugned judgment and order dated 13.9.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rampur in S.T. No.227 of 2013 (State Vs. Gokul and two others), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 325 I.P.C. and 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act, Case Crime No.6 of 2013, P.S. Sahjad Nagar, District Rampur with an application for leave to file appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C.
The brief facts relating to the case are that appellant lodged a report at 4:50 p.m. on 24.12.2012, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. with the averments that at about 3:00 p.m. when he was coming back to home from his field, he saw that accused- opposite party nos.2 to 4 had surrounded his brother Lal Singh and were abusing him badly and were saying that "tu Delhi me rahkar apne aapko bahut bada nawab samajhta hai, aaj tujhe maja chakhayenge aur gandi gandi gaali dene lage" and upon their interference started committing maarpit with lathi and dandas and they were rescued by villagers, when accused left under threat of life and in the incident he, his brother and wife sustained injuries in their head. Upon investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504, 506, 324, 325 I.P.C. and 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act and upon evidence and hearing parties' counsel, learned trial Court convicted accused persons for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C. and acquitting them from the charges of offence under Section 325 I.P.C. and 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act, released them on probation.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has preferred this appeal with an application for leave to appeal.
Upon hearing learned counsel for applicant-appellant, learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, it is crystal clear that in the report of incident lodged by appellant, there is no whisper that accused persons were calling Lal Singh or appellant with caste name though all prosecution witnesses in their statements on oath before Court have stated so and the trial Court finding it out an improvement at the stage of evidence, has disbelieved the contention. As far as offence under Section 325 I.P.C. is concerned, the Medical Officer P.W.-6 in his statement on oath has not stated that any fracture was caused to Lal Singh. Learned trial Court has also considered that in injury report of Lal Singh, Ex.A-5, he has been advised X-Ray of scull only and neither grievous injury was found in his hand nor left forearm nor X-Ray of hand was advised. It is also pertinent to mention that as per prosecution case, incident in question did not take place on public place. In the circumstances, the trial Court also disbelieved the fracture of any bone of Lal Singh and thus found that prosecution failed to prove charges under Section 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act and 325 I.P.C.
It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008)
1 SCC 258 "when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified".
In view of above, the findings recorded by trial Court for acquittal of accused persons under Section 325 I.P.C. and 3(1)X are inconfirmity with the evidence on record and there appears no perversity or manifest error of law. The learned counsel for appellant has failed to show any glaring mistake or misappreciation of evidence by trial Court.
The application for leave to appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be rejected.
The application for leave to appeal is rejected accordingly and consequently the appeal also stands dismissed.
Let the lower Court record, if any, has been received, be sent back forthwith to court below alongwith a copy of this order.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Anil K. Sharma