Court No. - 78
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 6440 of 2007 Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Jagdish And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Application for leave to appeal has been filed with regard to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 8.6.2007 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar in Special Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2001, Crime No. 520A/2000 under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC and 3(1)10 S.C. / S.T. Act, Police Station - Amroha Nagar, District - J.P. Nagar.
Learned AGA has contended that three eye witnesses including the victim were produced in evidence who have corroborated the prosecution case before the trial Court but learned trial court on minor discrepancies and contradiction have to believe their eye witnesses statements and passed the order of acquittal.
Learned trial court has failed to appreciate this evidence produced by the prosecution in proper perspective and hence the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is perverse and unsustainable.
In brief, the prosecution case is that complainant - Smt. Shakuntala moved an application dated 31.10.2000 before the learned Magistrate alleging therein that on 18.2.2000 at 12:00 p.m. when she was standing in front of office of the B.D.O., Amroha then her co-villager and Pradhan, namely Jagdish and Bablu came there and started abusing her. They also assaulted her with feet and punch. On her cries, witnesses - Kallu and Hompal came there and rescued her. She went to police station - Amroha for lodging a report but report was not registered then she moved an application to police authorities on 18.10.2020 but no action was taken. On the aforesaid application of the complainant under the orders of the learned Magistrate, case was registered at police station and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. Prosecution produced five witnesses. Learned trial court after hearing the arguments by the impugned judgment, acquitted the accused persons holding that prosecution has failed to prove its case.
From a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that learned trial Court has meticulously examined all the facts and evidence led by the prosecution. Learned trial court has also appreciated the entire oral evidence produced by the prosecution on record. It also transpires that prosecution has produced three witnesses of fact. The complainant herself is P.W.-1 while P.W.-2 - Roshan is the husband of the complainant and P.W.-3 - Hompal Singh is alleged to be an eye witness of the incident. It has been alleged that accused person who are two in number assaulted the complainant by feet and punch but complainant has not been medically examined and there is no medico legal examination report on record. Learned trial court has further observed that report has been lodged on the application moved by the complainant, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 31.10.2000. While the alleged incident is of 18.10.2002 and there is no supporting papers on record to show that prior to this complainant has moved before any authority in writing. Learned trial Court has further observed that presence of P.W.-3 - Hompal is doubtful because he is resident of distant village.
Considering the major contradiction on material points in the statements of P.W.-1 - Smt. Shakuntala and P.W.- 2 Roshan, learned trial court has disbelieved their testimony. The reasoning given by the learned trial court is proper and not appears to be perverse.
In the case of Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, the Apex Court has held that the appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside the judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible. It has to consider the entire evidence on record so as to arrive at findings as to whether the view of the trial Court was perverse or otherwise unsustainable.
Considering all the materials on record, it appears that the finding recorded by the trial court could not be said to be perverse or illegal and there is no sufficient ground to grant leave to appeal.
Application for leave to appeal is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Arif