Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 5178 of 2010 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Ramanand & 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 30.03.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Varanasi in S.T. No.472 of 2007, (State Vs. Ramanand & others), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant, who is a scheduled caste, on 18.5.2007 at about 10.00 A.M. met the accused respondents Ramanand, Bheem and Vinod, who were having political rivalry against him, and on exhortation to kill the complainant, other accused persons, namely, Virendra, Surendra, Kishan and Seva, residents of the same village, after chasing the complainant started beating him with fists and lathis. Complainant while shouting ran towards his house but the accused persons beat him while running and threatened him to kill after entering the house. The alleged incident was seen by the villagers of the village. The complainant received grievous injuries in the said incident.
FIR of the alleged incident had been lodged 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 Kishore, P.W.2 Babloo Kumar, P.W.3 Vinod Kumar, PW.4 Dr. S.V. Singh, P.W.5 Clerk Pramod Kumar Yadav, P.W.6 Circle Officer D.P. Yadav.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that injuries received by the complainant are of superficial in nature and there is no medical report of the same; no discussion with regard to Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. Act; there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses; no independent witness has been produced to support the prosecution version and the witnesses produced are related and interested witnesses; 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 :- 26.7.2018 Anand Sri./-