Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 5214 of 2010 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Anant And Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for State-appellant and perused the material placed on record.
The instant appeal has been filed alongwith application seeking leave to appeal against impugned judgement and order dated 6.4.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Jalaun in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2008 (State Vs. Anant and others), Police Station-Godan, District-Jalaun whereby he has acquitted the opposite parties of charges under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3 (1) (X) SC/ST Act.
Prosecution story in brief is that on 6.1.2008 complainant Vishnu Bhagat gave a written report to Station Officer of Police Station-Gohan alleging therein that on 6.1.2008 at about 10.00 a.m. his wife was standing alongwith her bhabhi and son near the door of the house, in the mean time villagers Anant and Basant sons of Satya Narayan and Shiv Dutt S/o Shyam Lal came there and started abusing and on objection all the accused persons started beating with kick, fist, slap, lathi and kulhadi, on restriction accused persons threatened to kill them, children of the complainant cried, then Devendra Kumar and Sanju came at the spot and intervene in the matter and they also witnessed the incident. The complainant was not present at the spot as he was out the house and when he has returned back then children of the complainant narrated the whole incident.
On the basis of aforesaid the F.I.R. was lodged in which after due investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the accused-respondents. Accused-respondents denied the prosecution allegations and claimed trial.
Prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW1 Smt. Anita, PW2 Vishnu Bhagat, PW3 Smt. Roshan Jahan, PW4 Devendra Kumar, PW5 Dr. Anil Singar, PW6 Shiv Kumar, PW7 Investigating Officer Radhey Shyam and PW8 S.I. Mohd. Hafiz.
Perusal of the impugned judgement and order shows that court below had recorded acquittal against the accused-respondents on the basis that there are material contradictions in the statements of the fact witnesses including the injured witness.
Further, the medical report does not corroborate the F.I.R. version. More so, no injury of axe was not found on the body of the injured.
It is relevant to mention that in Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC Page 589 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:-
"Only in a case when the judgement of the trial court is stated to be perverse i.e. against the weight of evidence, only then conclusion drawn by the trial Court could be re-appraised."
In K. Prakashan Vs. P. K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC, 258, Hon'ble Apex Court held that:-
" When two views are possible appellate Court should not reverse the judgement of acquittal merely because the other view was possible when judgement of trial court was neither perverse nor suffered from any illegality or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified."
In T. Subramanyan Vs. Tamilnadu (2006) 1 SCC, page 401, Hon'ble Apex Court laiddown that:-
"Where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
In light of above legal propositions, I have perused the impugned judgement and order of the trial Court and I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order. The view taken by the trial Court is just and does not suffer from any misreading of any material evidence on record.
In view of the aforesaid, the leave to appeal is declined. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly rejected.
Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 AKT