Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8384 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Jai Singh & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
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 preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 29.07.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, District Saharanpur in S.T. No.393 of 2008 (State of U.P. Vs. Karan Singh & others), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 452, 323, 324, 325, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Choohad Singh has given a written report to the police station alleging therein that on 03.11.2006 at about 7.00 p.m. Karam Singh, Jai Singh, Mange Ram, Sukhvir came to the house of complainant armed with lathi, danda and kharpali and accused Balendra exhorted to enter in the house. On that accused respondents entered into the house of the complainant and started abusing and beating to Vinod and Rajendra from their respective weapons and when Chandrawati came to save them the accused respondents beaten her and also broken the window and doors of the complainant. On raising alarm the villagers came there on that the accused respondents ran away from the place after extending threat to them.
On the basis of aforesaid information FIR was registered and after completion of the investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the accused respondents.
Prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.1 Choohad Singh, P.W.2 Rajendra, P.W.3 Chandrawati, P.W.4 Dr. S.K. Verma, P.W.5 C.C. Harendra Singh, P.W.6 Nathi Ram and P.W.7 Sanjai Verma.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that it is a cross case and impugned FIR has been lodged as a counterblast; the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
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 laid down 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 judgment and order of the trial court and do not find any illegality, infirmity and perversity in the same. The view taken by the trial judge is just, proper and does not suffer from any misreading of any material evidence on record.
In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the application for leave to appeal which is hereby rejected and consequently the present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Anand Sri./-