Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4554 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Rajendra And Others Counsel for Appellant :- GA
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 03.01.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.3, District Gorakhpur in S.T. No.130 of 2002 (State of U.P. Vs. Rajendra & others), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant of the case Ram Prasad used to live at the house of his brother-in-law, namely, Ghanshyam, in the village of his in-laws at Muhammadpur. Due to built the house of Ghanshyam and due to old enmity of land, Custom Inspectors Rajendra, Nagendra @ Ram Karan, Satya Prakash @ Rohit and Arun started abusing and beat them with lathi and danda. When his wife came to save then they also beat her, on account of which they received serious injuries.
On the basis of aforesaid information 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 Ram Prasad, P.W.2 Nirmala Devi, P.W.3 Nageshwar, PW.4 Khoob Lal, P.W.5 Chandra Shekhar Mani, P.W.6 Dr. S.K. Pathak and P.W.7 Jokhu Ram.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that the injuries are of simple in nature; there is lack of evidence regarding commission of offence; 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 :- 24.8.2018 Anand Sri./-