Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 406 (ALL)

SHYAM NARAYAN CHAUBEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-02-03

HARSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Harsh Kumar, J. The application for leave to appeal has been moved against the judgment and order dated 6.7.2001 passed by A.C.J.M., Varanasi acquitting the respondents no.2 to 6 from the charges of offences under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial court acted wrongly and illegally in not convicting the respondents no.2 to 6; that it was proved from the evidence on record that there was old enmity between the parties and multiple injuries were sustained by complainant/appellant S.N. Choubey, which were duly proved by Medical Officer, P.W.-4 Dr. B.M. Kumar; that the learned trial court has taken a very technical view in analyzing the evidence on record; that the contradictions in complainant's evidence were not so material rather were natural and immaterial. Per contra learned A.G.A. supporting the impugned order of acquittal submitted that the trial court has analyzed the complainant's evidence correctly and since there were material contradictions in the prosecution evidence, and the injury report itself was contradictory to the complaint case so the acquittal order has been rightly passed. Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record as well as the impugned judgment, I find that the learned magistrate has analyzed the prosecution evidence in detail and has found at internal page 5 that the injuries proved by medical officer, P.W.-4 are in contradiction with the statement of P.W.-3, because the complainant as P.W.-3 has stated that blood was oozing from his knee injury but the medical report states only complaint of pain on knee and does not speak of any visible injury or blood over alleged knee injury. Similarly while the complainant has stated to have sustained injuries in both the knees, the medical report does not speak so. The Magistrate has further rightly observed at page 5 itself of the impugned judgment that in case of giving a push to a person from front of scooter seat, no injury on chest may be sustained. It has further rightly held that the complainant has failed to prove its case and the specific words which were alleged uttered, with respect to offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, have not been even mentioned/reproduced. It is settled principle of law as held by the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. It has further rightly held that the complainant has failed to prove its case and the specific words which were alleged uttered, with respect to offence under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, have not been even mentioned/reproduced. It is settled principle of law as held by 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 the discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness of perversity in the finding given in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the acquittal order and substituting it with conviction order. The application u/s 378 (4) Cr.P.C. has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The application u/s 378 (4) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.