Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 402 of 2018 Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Pal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Akhil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
The perusal of the record as well as impugned judgment, it is made clear that according to the appellant/first informant there was a dispute in the evening of 18.6.2008 at about 6:00 PM, in which Moti Lal, Ramendra, Jawahar Lal and respondent No.2 Amar Singh committed Marpeet with the first informant and his brother with Lathi Danda, Kicks and Fists regarding which, a FIR was lodged by him at Case Crime No. 919-A of 2008, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. During trial the prosecution witnesses stated that the respondent No.2 was armed with Pistol at the time of incident and fired at first informant but the bullet hit his father Moti Lal co-accused. In the FIR or prosecution evidence, there is no whisper that respondent No.2 caused any injury to the first informant or his brother or any other person in any manner whatsoever and there is no case under Section 307 IPC, about attempt to murder against him.
Learned AGA has pointed out that plea of alleged firing by respondent No.2 causing firearm injury to his own father co- accused Moti Lal has been taken by the first informant / appellant to make a false defence in the cross case, Case Crime No. 919 of 2018.
Perusal of record shows that learned Trial Court has analyzed and discussed the prosecution evidence in detail and has not ignored any prosecution evidence against the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any iota of evidence against the respondent No.2 and in absence of any evidence, there can be no error in the impugned judgement acquitting him while convicting others. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment.
It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified".
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the findings given in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned acquittal order and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Akram
Order on Memo of Appeal Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on application for leave to file appeal.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Akram