Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7354 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Matwar Singh & Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
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 16.07.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Jaunpur in S.T. No.496 of 1996 (State Vs. Bechan Singh & others), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 198K(3) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Mangla Prasad – Constable Police Lines, District Maharajganj has given a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur on 29.01.1993 stating therein that he was allotted a land of 10 decimal area 1273 in village Sohni by Gram Samaj. Accused Bechan Singh with intention to harass him has contested the case before Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Magistrate, Munsif and District Judge from which he has been defeated and now on the basis of muscle power he is trying to take forcible possession of the same. He is not complying the order of the court and is flouting the same hence action may be taken against him and the complainant may be given the possession of the same. The complainant is alone of his caste in the village. The accused respondents are making efforts so that the complainant may leave the village.
After the direction of the Superintendent of Police, 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 Mangla Prasad and P.W.2 Sadafal Yadav.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that no independent witness has been produced to prove the prosecution version; no documentary evidence has been produced to prove the prosecution version that accused respondents have taken forcible possession of the complainant's land; 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 :- 23.8.2018 Anand Sri./-