Court No. - 11
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4080 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Lal Bahadur & Others 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 leave to file the appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 2 Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial No. 288 of 2000 (State vs. Lal Bahadur and others) by which the accused-respondents Lal Bahadur, Vijayi, Rajaram and Rambriksh were acquitted from the charge under sections 323/34, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act.
In nutshell the prosecution case is that on 24.11.1991 at 07:00 o'clock complainant Heeraman was doing some work at his door at that time Lal Bahadur, Razaram, Vijayi and Ramgrish reached there and hurled the abuses on him when complainant asked them not to abuse then they started beating complainant Heeraman with stick and when the wife of the complainant reached there to save complainant then the accused- respondents beated Bindu Devi wife of complainant with stick, Lathi, Kicks and punches.
Learned trial court has returned the verdict of acquittal on the ground that there are two injured persons in this case, Heeraman complainant and his wife Bindu Devi. PW-1 Heeraman and PW-2 Bindu Devi have not supported the prosecution version and they both were declared hostile. The statement of PW-1 Heeraman is quoted herein below:-
“lk{; esa oknh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ?kVuk ds le; mldh vfHk;qDrx.k ls dqN ckr&phr gks jgh FkhA ?kVuk LFky ij xkao ds cgqr lkjs yksx bdV~Bk gks x;s FksA dkQh HkhM+ gks xbZ FkhA mlh HkhM+ esa ls mls fdlh us /kDdk ns fn;k ftlls og fxj x;k vkSj mls pksV vk xbZA mlh le; mldh iRuh fcUnq Hkh vk xbZ Fkh tks /kDdk yxus ls fxj xbZ Fkh vkSj mls Hkh pksVsa vk xbZ FkhA mls vfHk;qDrx.k us ykBh ls ekjk&ihVk ugha Fkk] u rks xkyh& xqIrk fn;k Fkk vkSj u gh pekfj;k 'kCn dg dj viekfur fd;k FkkA xkao ds yksxksa ds dgus ij mlus vfHk;qDrx.k dk uke viuh jiV esa vafdr djk fn;k FkkA”
The statement of PW-2 Bindu Devi is quoted as herein below:-
“ih0 MCyw0 2 fcUnq nsoh ds c;ku ls Li"V gksrk gS fd lk{kh us ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ?kVuk ds le; mlds njokts ij dkQh HkhM+ yx xbZ FkhA mlds ifr dh vfHk;qDrx.k ls dqN dgk&lquh gks jgh Fkh og Hkh ekSds ij igaqp xbZ FkhA mlh HkhM+&HkkM esa fdlh us mls /kDdk ns fn;k og vkSj mlds ifr fxj x;sA fxjus ds dkj.k bu yksxksa dks pksVsa vk xbZA mlus ykBh M.Mk ls ekjus& ihVrs gq, vfHk;qDrx.k dks ugha ns[kk FkkA vfHk;qDrx.k us mls o mlds ifr dks Hkn~nh&Hkn~nh xkfy;ka ugha nh Fkh vkSj u gh pekfj;k 'kCn dg dj viekfur fd;k FkkA”
It is also worth mentioning that the complainant Heeraman and Bindu Devi had filed the compromise deed in the trial court under section 323, 504 IPC which is accepted by the court.
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