Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 532 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. V. M. Singh

2017-02-14

HARSH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Harsh Kumar,J. The application for leave to appeal has been filed by the State for seeking permission to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 6.10.2016 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Pilibhit in S.T. No.71 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. V.M. Singh), Case Crime No.585 of 2010, under Sections 352, 353, 506 I.P.C. & 3(1) 10 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Pooranpur, District Pilibhit, acquitting the accused V.M. Singh from the charges under Sections 352, 353, 506 I.P.C. & 3(1) 10 S.C./S.T. Act. Learned A.G.A. submitted that on 3.4.2010 a fight did take place between workers/goondas of Congress party and the supporters of Bhartiya Communist Party (MALE) and the injured persons were brought by Police and P.A.C. for medical examination at Pooranpur Health Centre; that the first informant and other police personnels had also reached there for getting the injured persons examined; that in the meantime the Congress leader V.M. Singh abused the first informant, threatened him and attacked in which Constable Jawahar Ram sustained injuries; that the trial court has acted wrongly in not appreciating the evidence correctly in favour of prosecution; that it was proved from the evidence on record that the charges were fully proved against the accused; that the State has every hope of success in appeal. Upon hearing learned A.G.A. and perusal of record, I find that the prosecution has produced Jawahar Ram, Sayeed Khan, Constable Amar Nath Yadav, Prahlad and I.O. Suresh Chandra Rawat as P.W.-1 to P.W.-5. The trial court has categorically analysed the evidence of all the witnesses in detail and has found that there is no injury report of alleged injured Jawahar Ram on record and there is no evidence to show that the accused assaulted or used criminal force against public servant to prevent them from discharging their duties and failed to prove the charges under Section 352 , 353 I.P.C. The trial court has also come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove by any independent, cogent and trustworthy evidence, that by use of which words the accused caused insults of the first informant and so the charges under Section 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) S.C./S.T. Act have not been proved. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. 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 A.G.A. has failed to show that the learned trial court has not considered any evidence on record or has misread any evidence on record or to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or 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 (3) Cr.P.C. has no force and is liable to be dismissed. The application u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed. Order on Memo of Appeal Harsh Kumar,J. Dismissed. For order see order of date passed on Application U/s 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal.