Court No. - 78
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3862 of 2008 Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Radha Raman Dubey Counsel for Appellant :- D.R. Chaudhary G.A.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This an application for leave to appeal has been filed with regard to judgment of acquittal passed by the Special/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar, dated 27.02.2008 in Sessions Trial No.48 of 2003 (State Vs. Radha Raman Dubey). By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent- Radha Raman Dubey from charges under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3 (1) 10 SC/ST Act.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the prosecution evidence and has decided the case only on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Prosecution has proved its case by examining the complainant/injured and the medical evidence but the trial Court failed to reassess the prosecution case in its proper perspective and hence the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is perverse, illegal, unjustified and bad in the eye of law.
In brief, the prosecution story is that on the information of complainant Balai, that he is the member of Scheduled Caste and on 12.03.2002 at 02 p.m. the accused Radha Raman Dubey has abused him and assaulted him with feet and punch. On the aforesaid information, case under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3 (1) 10 SC/ST Act was registered and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. The prosecution produced five witnesses P.W.1 Balai- informant/ injured, P.W. 2 Ram Prashad, P.W.3 Budhiram, P.W.4 Dr. Mahendra Prashad Gupta and P.W. 5 Atul Kumar Srivastava, Circle Officer. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and has passed the impugned order of acquittal.
From the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the learned trial Court has elaborately discussed and appreciated the entire evidences produced by the prosecution. The injured Balai P.W.1 although has supported the prosecution version but P.W. 3 Budhiram has become hostile and has not supported the prosecution case while P.W. 2 Ram Prashad in his cross examination has said that injured Balai fail down and suffered injuries in scuffle with the accused. The injured Balai has only one injury of abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the head which is simple in nature and cause by hard object while the accused has also suffered injuries which has been proved by P.W.4 Dr. Mahendra Prashad Gupta and according to him five visible injuries were found on the body of the accused. Accused has suffered one contusion 9 cm x 2 cm on his back and other contusion 11 cm x 1.5 cm on the right hand and one contusion 7 cm. x 1.5 cm on right thigh and one injury of swelling on left leg. The learned trial Court has observed that prosecution has failed to give any explanation of the injuries of the accused. So considering the entire material on record and after appreciation of the entire evidence on the record, the trial Court has passed the order of acquittal.
In the case of Babu Vs. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, the Apex Court has held that the appellate Court should not ordinarily set aside the judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible. It has to consider the entire evidence on record so as to arrive at findings as to whether the view of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable.
From the above discussions, it is clear that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence and there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment of acquittal so there is no sufficient ground to grant leave to appeal and the same is liable to be rejected.
Application for leave to appeal is hereby rejected.
Consequently, the Appeal also stands dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Krishna*