Court No. - 50
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 54 of 2018 Applicant :- Smt. Seela Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The application has been moved for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.2.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Rampur in Complaint Case No.306 of 2004 (Smt. Seela Devi Vs. Om Prakash and others), acquitting the opposite party nos.2 to 7 from the charges under sections 323, 504, 506 IPC.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the learned trial court has acted wrongly in disbelieving the prosecution case for non production of independent witnesses as well as non production of Medical Officer; that the prosecution case was fully supported by the first informant herself as well as by the statement of Radha; that in the incident in question the first informant sustained various injuries but there was no external injury; that in the incident in question ear rings of first informant were also snatched away.
Learned AGA supported the impugned judgment.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that the trial court has analyzed and discussed the prosecution evidence in detail; that the trial court has also held that according to prosecution version Ram Swaroop, Ram Pyari, Lekhraj, Ganga Dei, Virendra and Phool Chandra intervened in the incident dated 13.1.2004 and saved her and by that time the six accused- persons mercilessly beaten her with lathis for a period of 10 minutes, due to which she fell unconscious. The trial court has rightly observed that none of the above mentioned witnesses were produced to corroborate and on the sole statement of interested witness Radha, the accused- respondent may not be convicted. It is highly unbelievable that as many as six persons will commit marpeet with a lady for a period of 10 minutes and she will not sustain even a single external injury.
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 discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the findings given in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the acquittal order and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Tamang
Order on Memo of Appeal
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on application for leave to file appeal.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Tamang