Court No. - 11
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4084 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Awadhesh Counsel for Appellant :- Desh Ratna Chaudhary/Ga
Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. on the application seeking the leave to file the appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2 Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 461 of 1996 (State of U.P. vs. Awadhesh).
In nutshell the prosecution version is that the complainant Tihuli lodged the FIR in this fact that her wheat crop was standing on the gatar no. 287 meter zamla, area 33 acre decimal. Chandra Prakash and Awadhesh harvested this crop saying that it belongs to them when complainant going there to oppose them then they insulted her between number of people that she is scheduled caste lady. This occurrence took place on 05.04.1992 at 10:00am.
Trial court has returned the verdict of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution failed to proved that the crop which was harvested by the accused-respondents was standing on the land of complainant. In this regard the finding of trial court is quoted herein below:_ “,Q0 vkbZ0 vkj0 ls Li"V gksrk gS fd ,Q0 vkbZ0 vkj0 esa okfnuh us dgha Hkh ekjus&ihVus vkSj tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsus dk dksbZ dFku ugha fd;k gSA ih0 MCyw0&2 ds c;ku ls Li"V gksrk gS fd okLro esa ekSds ij lgh <ax ls iSekb'k ugha dh xbZ gSA fookfnr tehu dk feutqeyk uacj gS ftldk ,d cM+k jdck gS vkSj vyx& vyx O;fDr;ksa dks FkksM+h& FkksM+h tehu cSukek dh xbZ gSA ekSds ij fdldk tehu dgka ls dgka rd gS bl rF; dk fu/kkZj.k rHkh fd;k tk ldrk gS tc lgh <ax ls iSekbZ'k dh tk;A pawfd okfnuh us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd vfHk;qDr us tc ls cSukek fy;k rHkh ls mlus viuh esaM+ cka/k yh FkhA mijksDr c;ku ls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr us tgka rd viuh esM+ cka/kh Fkh ogka rd ml ij mldk dCtk cSukek ds le; ls FkkA okfnuh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd viuh esM+ cka/kus okyh tehu esa gh vfHk;qDr us Qly cks;k Fkk vkSj Qly dkVk FkkA U;k;ky; ds fopkj ls pwafd vfHk;qDr us mlh Qly dks dkVk tks Qly mlus cksbZ Fkh ftl ij mldk dCtk Fkk vkSj tks tehu mldh cukbZ gqbZ esM+ ds vUnj FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa vfHk;kstu i{k dk ;g dFku fd vfHk;qDr us tcjnLrh okfnuh dh cksbZ gqbZ Qly dks dkV fy;k vkSj mls viuh tehu ls csn[ky dj fn;k vkSj pawfd okfnuh ,d gfjtu tkfr dh efgyk Fkh blfy;s ;g vijk/k dkfjr fd;k] bl dFku dks fl) djus ds fy;s dksbZ Bksl lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gSA ih0 MCyw0 1 o ih0 MCyw0 2 nksuksa ds lk{; ls bl rF; dh iqf"V gks jgh gS fd ftl tehu ij vfHk;qDr dk dCtk Fkk mlh tehu ij vfHk;qDr us viuh Qly dks dkVk gSA”
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Court below is not possible and plausible thus the judgment of the court below cannot be interfered with by this Court only on account of the fact that another view is possible.
Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the court below and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by trial court is a perverse view.
Thus in view of aforesaid consistent legal position as elaborated above and also in view of the fact that learned A.G.A. has failed to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings so recorded in the impugned order, no case for interference has been made out. No interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted. Accordingly the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Swati