Court No. - 58
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1210 of 1997 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Rameshwar Counsel for Appellant :- V.S.Mishra
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 filed alongwith application seeking leave to appeal against impugned judgement and order dated 12.12.1996 passed by C.J.M., Badanyu in Case No.4044 of 1993 (State Vs. Rameshwar) whereby he has acquitted the opposite party of charges under Section 198-A of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Prosecution story in brief is that accused-respondents had restrained the complainant to build up his house in the land which was granted him as lease. F.I.R. of the aforesaid incident was registered in the police station concerned and Investigation Officer after proper investigation has submitted the charge sheet against the accused- respondents. Accused-respondents denied the allegations and claimed trial.
Prosecution has not examined any witness to prove the case.
Perusal of the impugned judgement and order reveals that, learned court below recorded the acquittal against the accused-respondent as no cogent and credible evidence has been produced before the trial court by the prosecution.
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 laiddown 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 and on a careful perusal of the impugned judgement and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken of the evidence, does not provide any ground for interfering with the order of acquittal, unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible view. The Court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgement and order. The impugned judgement and order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. On the evidence, available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view.
In this view of the matter, 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 :- 30.3.2018 AKT