Court No. - 76
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1833 of 2002 Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Satish Chabra And Another Counsel for Appellant :- R.P. Dubey
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. on an application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. for granting of leave to appeal.
This appeal has been filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2002 passed in S.T.No. 215 of 2002 arising out of Case No. 70 of 199, under Sections 325, 504, 427, 506 IPC, Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut.
Learned A.G.A. in support of the appeal submits that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and it is against the weight of evidence on record. Learned trial court has erroneously passed the impugned order while discarding the prosecution evidence without applying his mind. He further submits that the finding recorded by the trial court is perverse. The prosecution witnesses have supported the case but the trial court has not relied on that. The prosecution version is also supported with the medical report but learned trial court has also ignored this piece of evidence. Therefore leave to appeal be granted.
From perusal of record, it shows that in this case, the allegation of assault and causing grievous injuries to informant had been made against the accused Satish Chabra and Ravi Chabra. It has also been alleged that appellant Satish Chabra has assaulted the informant with rod causing grievous injuries on his finger and appellant Ravi Chabra assaulted with fists on the mouth of the informant causing injury on the left eye of the informant in which his spectacle has broken. P.W-2, Roop Chandra has been examined as a witness of fact, P.W-3 Dr. Anil Maini and P.W-4 Dr. Neeraj Garg have been examined for supporting the medical report. P.W-5 S.I. Sri M.L Arya has also been examined. No other public witness has been examined for supporting the case. Chaman Singh is said to be eye witness of the occurrence but he had not been produced before the Court. Presence of Roop Chandra and Chaman Singh was alleged at the time of occurrence but their names had not been shown in the F.I.R as employee of the informant. In the medical report, Dr. Niraj Garg, P.W-4 has examined the injury of the informant but he had not written any identification mark or address of the injured. Informant has stated before the Court that he was brought to the doctor by his employees Roop Chandra and Chaman Singh but on the medical report name of Shashi Bhusan has been mentioned. At page-7, in Examination-in-chief of the informant, it has been mentioned that Shashi Bhushan did not take the informant for his treatment. The doctor has also not mentioned the age, identification mark or address of the patient in the medical report. Likewise in the X-Ray report, the age, address or identification mark of the patient had not been mentioned. X-ray plate did not show the name of patient. No date or time has been mentioned in the X-ray plate.A certificate regarding presence of accused Ravi Chabra in the Union Bank of Azamgarh had also been given in the evidence which created suspicion about the present of accused on the spot. Broken spectacle of the informant had also not been produced at the time of trial. All these facts have been taken into consideration while passing the judgement in question by the trial court. In this situation, there appears no illegality or perversity in passing of the judgement by the trial court.There appears no ground to grant leave to appeal in this case.
Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any other illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial court and thus, it cannot be said that the view taken by the court below is a perverse view.
In this way, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances enumerated above, this court is of the view that the trial court has passed the judgment and order for acquittal of the respondent regarding which it cannot be said that the view taken by the court below is not possible and plausible.
The learned trial court has given cogent and convincing reasons for acquitting the accused respondent, therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the appellants.
The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021 G.S