Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8326 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ram Ashish Yadav & Others 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 12.01.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.01, Azamgarh in S.T. No.06 of 2006 (State Vs. Ram Ashish Yadav & others) whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 30.07.1995 the complainant Diwakar, who is a resident of village Basupar, Post Pagri, district Azamgarh, along with his nephew Surjan and Subhas were returning from Town Jiyanpur after marketing, at that time accused Ram Ashish Yadav, Santosh Yadav, Rajendra Yadav and Prahalad Yadav were present on Tiraha of Mubarakpur. At about 5.00 p.m. in the evening due to old enmity with the complainant they have beaten them by the Kund of Katta piece of bamboo and also fists and kicks, due to the aforesaid maarpeet they got injuries. This incident was witnessed by Ram Chandra and Sahatam and other villagers who were present in the market and they saved them. A written report with regard to incident was given by the complainant Diwakar at Police Station Kotwali, Jiyanpur and on the basis of written report the case was registered against the accused persons the injured persons were medically examined by the doctor.
The case was investigated by Sub Inspector Abdul Rauf Khan 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 Diwakar, P.W.2 Surjan @ Suryabhan, P.W.3 Subhash, P.W.4 Sub Inspector Abdul Rauf Khan and P.W.5 Rajendra Prasad.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that according to statements of P.W.4 and P.W.5 prosecution story is not believable; no medical report has been prepared against the injuries sustained by injured persons; prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all 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./-