Court No. - 20
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8325 of 2009 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Santosh & 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 08.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.01, Azamgarh in S.T. No.260 of 1998 (State of U.P. Vs. Santosh Kumar & 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 complainant, who is a resident of Bhawna – Buzurg, Police Station Jiyanpur, gave a written report to S.O. Jiyanpur alleging therein that about 2-3 months ago the nephew of complainant was beaten by one villager namely Santosh Rai and he had also beaten to Dhirendra, due to this maarpeet a case has already been lodged against him. Due to this enmity on 12.06.1996 in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. when the complainant was going from Jiyanpur to his village by cycle and when he reached in front of Gumti of Bikayal Giri the accused Santosh, Jitendra and Janardan have exhorted and stopped him and started beating to him by lathis and due to this maarpeet he got serious injuries and fell down on the ground. The accused persons suspected him dead and ran away towards village and the cycle of complainant was left there. This incident was witnessed by villagers Shyambali and Sudama. The accused persons ran away by threatening them. On the basis of written report the case was registered as Case Crime No.279 of 1996 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 Badama, P.W.2 Sudama, P.W.3 Shyambali, P.W.4 Anantdev (Investigating Officer), P.W.5 Kamlesh Chauchan.
Perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that learned trial court had acquitted the accused respondents on the ground that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are real brothers and in order to settle their enmity a false case has been registered against the accused respondents; 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./-