Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1794 (ALL)

Javed Alam v. Ram Pratap Yadav

2023-07-26

SHAMIM AHMED

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Sajjad Husain, the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Hari Shanker Vajpayee, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State, as well perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., the appellant, Javed Alam, has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.02.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Ambedkar Nagar in Session Trial No. 281 of 2016, State Vs. Ram Pratap Yadav and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 83 of 2016, under Sections 308/34, 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, acquitting the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 from the charges under Section 308/34 I.P.C. framed against them and convicting them for the offence under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and releasing them on furnishing personal bond of Rs.30,000/- each for probation period. 3. According to the prosecution version, on 18.03.2016 at about 11:00 a.m. when the son of complainant, namely, Javed Alam (present appellant) was coming to his house dragging a cart which was laden by mustard crops, then the fennel crops standing in the field of opposite party No. 1-Ram Pratap, got stuck, on account of which the accused persons started abusing him, thereafter, when the son of complainant was going to his field again for taking crops, the accused persons including Sudhanshu and Kaushalya surrounded him and assaulted him by lathi, danda and iron rod. On shrieks when the complainant and his family members reached at the spot the accused persons fled away from there while threatening the complainant and his other family members. On this written report the case was registered by the police against the accused persons. After the case was committed, the accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. The court below after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, passed the impugned judgment and order dated 21.02.2023. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits court below did not appreciate the evidence on record, prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused on the basis of evidence and the impugned judgment was passed without considering the statement of witnesses and the case set up by the prosecution and was passed on surmises and conjectures. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits court below did not appreciate the evidence on record, prosecution has successfully proved the offence against the accused on the basis of evidence and the impugned judgment was passed without considering the statement of witnesses and the case set up by the prosecution and was passed on surmises and conjectures. 6. Learned A.G.A.-I submits that there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, therefore, the present appeal may be dismissed. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. 8. In the present case from the statements given by the witnesses produced by the prosecution including the injury report of the injured, I found that prosecution has failed to establish that the crime in question has been committed by the accused. There appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, which is before this Court. 9. Further, this Court observed that an appeal against acquittal stands on a different footing from the appeal against conviction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 has considered this difference and has observed in paragraph nos.20 and 21 as under : "20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can raise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held: 7. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasiva V. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held: 7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal." 21. The Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative." 10. In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, the impugned judgment has to be considered from the point of view whether the view taken by the court below was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits. 11. A criminal trial proceeds with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons. With the acquittal of the accused persons this presumption of innocence stands fortified. So very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of acquittal. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid weakness of the prosecution case, as noted by the court below, I am of the view that the view taken by the court below was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. So very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of acquittal. 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid weakness of the prosecution case, as noted by the court below, I am of the view that the view taken by the court below was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the court below cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable and not based on material on record or is based on erroneous views and is against the settled position of law. So, this Court is satisfied that there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 14. No order as to costs. 15. Copy of this judgment be sent to the court below for its compliance. 16. Lower court record, if any, be returned back to the court concerned.