Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3218 of 2010 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Rajpati Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
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 16.01.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.5, Deoria in S.S.T. No.117 of 1997 (State Vs. Rajpati Singh), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 23.08.1995 when daughter of complainant Km. Sunita was cutting grass at about 8.00 a.m. at that time Arjun Singh s/o Rajpati Singh, resident of the same village, abused her. Daughter of the complainant Km. Sunita told this incident to her mother at home. On hearing this complainant and his wife went to complain about the same, then accused respondent Rajpati Singh started beating complainant with lathi and Arjun Singh started beating his wife with fant. Due to fear the FIR was lodged after three days of the occurrence, i.e. on 26.08.1995.
After completion of the investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the accused respondent.
Prosecution in support of its case examined P.W.1 Ram Pyare, P.W.2 Phoolpati Devi, P.W.3 Sunita, P.W.4 Dr. Jawahar Lal and P.W.5 Vinay Kumar Singh.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondent on the ground that there is delay in lodging the FIR; medical evidence is not in consonance with the ocular version; injuries have not been proved by the medical report; 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./-