Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 67 of 2018 Applicant :- Pullu Kole Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the trial court's judgment on record.
This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgment and order dated 22.11.2017, passed in Sessions Trial No. 304 of 2001 (State vs. Babbu Pal), arising out of Case Crime No. 136 of 2000, under Section 326 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station- Haliya, District- Mirzapur, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.2, Mirzapur, whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.
As per the prosecution story, the incident is said to have occurred on 6.11.2000 but the F.I.R. was lodged after 13 days i.e. on 19.11.2000 and the victim was medically examined on 20.11.2000. The first information report was lodged by Pullu Kol, father of the victim and according to the F.I.R. the accused Babbu Pal, all of a sudden, assaulted the victim by inflicting a blow on the right palm of the victim, namely, Dinesh, aged about 18 years, as a result of which, his three fingers got mutilated. According to the doctor S.D. Mishra, the alleged injury could have been three days old, as such the allegations of the prosecution that injury was caused on 6.11.2000 is not believable and the veracity of the prosecution story found untrustworthy. It has also come on record that the prosecution had tried to make interpolation in the F.I.R in order to change the date of lodging F.I.R. by adding '1' before 6.11.2000 in order to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R.
On a careful perusal of the judgment and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken of the evidence provides no ground for interfering with the order of acquittal unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible view. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgment and order. On the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view.
We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Atmesh