Court No. - 58
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 789 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Jamil & Another 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 judgment and order dated 01.11.2002 passed by Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jyotiba Phulay Nagar whereby the accused was acquitted from charges under Sections 380, 457 and 411 I.P.C.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 29.1.2000 Yogendra Kumar, Assistant Cashier, Dhamora lodged a written report at Bachraun Police Station. In the said report it is stated that at about 2.30 a.m. Tehsil Peon Mahender Singh and Constable Sukhpal Singh informed him that locks of double lock of Sub Treasury have been picked and shutter is open; on receiving the said information informant went to the house of Tehsildar and returned to the Sub Treasury along with Tehsildar and S.D.M. and found Kharis Siyah box missing from the double lock cell, which contained Rs.2,34,144.74/- and the keys were kept by Sub Treasury Officer and Cashier.
On written report of the complainant F.I.R. was registered in the police station concerned against the accused-respondents and Investigation Officer after proper investigation has submitted the charge sheet against the accused-respondents.
Witnesses Yogesh Kumar P.W.1, Mukesh Kumar Khanna P.W.2, Veer Pal Singh P.W.3, R.K. Saini P.W.4, Lakhpat P.W.5, M.P. Singh P.W.6, Shiv Pal Singh P.W.7, Harendra Singh P.W.8, Surendra Singh Chaudhary P.W.9 and Raj Pal P.W.10 had been examined to prove the prosecution case.
Perusal of the impugned judgement and order reveals that, learned court below recorded the acquittal against the accused persons on the basis that discoveries made were found false. The presence, involvement and complicity in commission of the crime against the accused persons established by the cogent and credible evidence recorded before the trial court were not proved.
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 and on a careful perusal of the impugned judgement and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken of the evidence, does not provide any ground for interfering with the order of sentence, unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible view. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgement and order. The impugned judgement and order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. On the evidence, available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view.
In this view of the matter, 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 :- 22.2.2018 Anand Sri./-