Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4555 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sangam Yadav 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 12.02.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, District Gorakhpur in S.T. No.147 of 2007 (State of U.P. Vs. Sangam & others), whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 308, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Lalji Yadav gave an application at Police Station Belipar Gorakhpur alleging that on 12.11.2005 at 5.30 p.m. his elder brother Ramji Yadav was purchasing vegetable at Belipar crossing. The accused persons were already present there. They began to abuse him and beaten by pharsa, hockey, saria, as a result of which Ramji Yadav, Rajan, Raju Yadav and Man Singh became injured badly. Ramji Yadav received serious injuries and had got admitted to hospital where his injuries were examined and x-ray of his head was advised. C.T. Scan of left portion of head was also done of injured Raju. On account of treatment of injured persons a delayed report was given to the police station.
On the basis of chik report Ex.Ka-1, 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 Ramji Yadav, P.W.2 Raju Yadav, P.W.3 Man Singh, P.W.4 Rajan and P.W.5 Lalji Yadav.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that the witnesses produced by prosecution have not supported the prosecution version; 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./-