Court No. - 50
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1189 of 1997 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Parmatma And Others Counsel for Appellant :- V.S.Mishra
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
The application has been moved by State for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.11.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Basti in S.T. No.41 of 1992, State Vs. Parmatma and others, acquitting the respondents from the charges under sections 308/ 323 IPC.
Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned AGA submitted that the prosecution has fully establishes the charges against the accused- persons; that it is proved from the evidence on record that the injuries were sustained to the three injured in the incident in question; that the learned trial court has acted wrongly in acquitting the accused-persons.
Upon hearing learned AGA and perusal of record, I find that at page 7 of the impugned judgment there is description of evidence of P.W.6 Dr. C.B. Singh, who has stated to have conducted the medical examination of Deenanath, Ishwar Dutt and Kalandi on 27.11.1986 at about 3:45 p.m., 4:20 p.m. and at the time of examination, all the injuries were found to be simple in nature and fresh, having been sustained about 6-7 hours back. He has specifically stated in cross examination that the injuries of injured may not have been sustained on 26.11.1986 at 10:00 a.m. Considering the fact that the incident in question is alleged to have occurred at 10:00 a.m. on 26.11.1986, the prosecution case fails in view of the evidence of medical officer on record, who has categorically stated that the injuries of three injured persons, may not have been sustained at the time of incident.
It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs.
P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified".
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned AGA has failed to show any legal infirmities, incorrectness or perversity in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order of acquittal in the mater relating to 31 years old incident and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Tamang
Order on Memo of Appeal Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on application for grant of leave to file appeal.
Order Date :- 25.4.2018 Tamang