Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3771 (ALL)

State of U. P. (U/S 378 Crpc) v. Devi Ram Mishra

2010-12-21

YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL

body2010
Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J. This State appeal filed against the order of acquittal dated 29.03.1997 passed by learned first Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Case Crime No. 1812 of 1994 related to Crime No. 313 of 1992 under Section 420 and 406 IPC, P.S. Piswan, District Sitapur. There was delay of one day in filing the appeal that has already been condoned vide order dated 13.12.2010. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the State for purpose of admission of appeal for hearing and to grant leave to file the appeal and perused the record. As per case of the prosecution Devi Ram accused was Munhsi in the company M/s. Hans Raj Gupta & Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. The Branch Office of the company was in town Misrik, District Sitapur. This company was doing business for letting out Kolhu and Kadhao on rent. On 03.10.1992 the charge of godown was with Ganga Ram which was handed over to accused on 14.08.1992 and since then he was looking after the business of the company. On 01.10.1992 by playing fraud accused Devi Ram on some pretext taken charge of the godown from the Ganga Ram and he made disappeared the Iron Kadhao of company valued Rs. 50,000/- and misappropriated the same. A report was lodged against him. Case was registered. After investigation in the matter, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Accused was charged for the offence accordingly, but he pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution PW-1 Raj Kumar; PW-2 Ganga Ram; PW-3 Jagdish Prasad; PW-4 Bijay Sharma; PW-5 Ashok witnesses were examined. In statement under Section 313 CrPC accused had denied the correctness of the prosecution case. He stated that although he was working in the company, charge of godown was not with him. He simply was engaged for recovery of the dues of the company. Charge of godown was never handed over to him. Ganga Ram is still working in the company as incharge of the godown. It was denied by him that he had taken the charge of the godown by deceiving Ganga Ram and he had misappropriated the articles from the godown. He further stated that his brother has filed a suit against the company for recovery of Rs. 8 lacs. To pressurize his brother only he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was denied by him that he had taken the charge of the godown by deceiving Ganga Ram and he had misappropriated the articles from the godown. He further stated that his brother has filed a suit against the company for recovery of Rs. 8 lacs. To pressurize his brother only he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is said that he himself filed civil suit against the company. He also filed five documents in defence. After hearing the arguments of parties counsel and State counsel and after going through the record and giving detailed and sufficient reasons, learned trial court found him not guilty of the charges for which he was charged. It was further held by the learned trial court that as the brother of the accused has filed a suit against the company and he has also filed a suit against the company so to pressurize, this FIR has been lodged, this cannot be ruled out. Reasons given by the learned trial court in the judgment of acquittal to the accused-respondent seen carefully. Such reasonings are consistent with the evidence. It is established law that as a matter of prudence the court of appeal should not interfere with the order of acquittal by re-appreciating the evidence and taking some other view. Reasonings given by the learned trial court are not contrary to the weight of evidence available on the record. No interference by the court of appeal is required in the findings given by the learned trial court. It is also established law that generally order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by his acquittal by the trial court. If two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted, held as such by the court in the case of Manipal vs. State reported in 2004 Crl.J. 2036. Findings of the trial court which has the advantage to see the witnesses and their demeanor and hearing the other evidence can be reversed only for very substantial compelling reasons. It is also established law that order of acquittal should not be lightly disturbed with even if court believes that there is some evidence point out finger towards the accused. Findings of the trial court which has the advantage to see the witnesses and their demeanor and hearing the other evidence can be reversed only for very substantial compelling reasons. It is also established law that order of acquittal should not be lightly disturbed with even if court believes that there is some evidence point out finger towards the accused. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no interference by this Court is required in the matter in the appeal. There is no substance in permitting to file the appeal to State. Application has no force. Accordingly, application as well as appeal are hereby dismissed.