Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Kalyan Singh And 2 Others on 5 July, 2021
Bench: Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 139 of 2021
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Kalyan Singh And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned Brief holder for the State-appellant through Video Conferencing and perused the material available on record.
By way of instant Government Appeal, leave to appeal has been sought by the appellant-State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.01.2021, passed by Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional District Judge, District Jhansi in Special Case No. 08 of 2005 (State of U.P. vs. Bhatulley and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1771 of 2004, under Sections - 387, 364-Ka and 393 I.P.C., Police Station - Nawabad, District - Jhansi, whereby the accused-respondents have been acquitted of the charges under the aforesaid section of I.P.C.
The contention is restricted to the ground that in this case, though it is obvious that the victim was very much known to the accused, even then the testimony of the victim would prevail that he was beaten by the accused and that has not been properly considered by the trial court, therefore, the ground for allowing the leave to appeal exists.
We have also considered the entirety of this case and also gone through the certified copy of the judgment.
Upon bare perusal of the same, it appears that the judgment of the trial court runs in as many as 13 pages, wherein the entire incident has been considered by the trial court, which arose out of the Case Crime No. 1771 of 2004 (State of U.P. vs. Bhatulley and Others). Accused- Bhatulley and Gajraj Singh were summoned to face the trial under Sections - 387 and 393 I.P.C. and cognizance was taken on 13.01.2005. Thereafter, during course of proceeding, by virtue of Section - 319 I.P.C., the other co-accused Kalyan Singh, Rajendra Singh and Ramesh were also summoned to face the trial under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C.
The case of one of the co-accused- Bhatulley stood abated on account of his death vide order of the trial court dated 15.12.2006.
Bare perusal of the record, it transpires that the report against the aforesaid accused was lodged on 11.11.2004 at 21:15 hours at the aforesaid police station against the aforesaid accused in the aforesaid case crime number under Sections - 364-A, 323, 506 I.P.C., copy whereof is Exhibit Ka-1.
The investigation took place and charge-sheet was filed against the aforesaid two accused as observed by us herein above. But after proceeding was drawn, the other accused were also joined by virtue of Section - 319 I.P.C. Thereafter, the charges were framed under Sections - 387, 364-Ka and 393 I.P.C. and the same were read over and explained to the accused who abjured the charges and opted for trial.
The prosecution was required to adduce its testimony, whereupon the prosecution produced its witnesses and after examination of the witnesses, the evidence for the prosecution was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section - 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they claimed to have been falsely implicated on account of some ulterior motive as the victim has manipulated the situation and he being an advocate was well acquainted with the proceeding of the court.
The trial court heard the argument of both the sides and recorded categorical finding that in this case, in so far as the status and the position of the victim is concerned, that was very much previously known to the accused and both the sides were acquainted with each other. Therefore, the plea raised by the victim that his status was asked by the accused and then offence was committed particularly under Section 364-A I.P.C. cannot be sustained in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case.
More so, the statement of the victim is that in this case beating was given by the accused-respondents to the victim and he sustained injuries. However, as per his testimony, no medical examination, whatsoever, was conducted though the victim was none other than an Advocate and he was well conscious about the consequences of this inaction on his part. That being so, the trial court was justified in recording the finding of acquittal, at this stage.
We have also considered the other aspects of this case and it is trite law that in case of acquittal, if the appellate court after considering the material on record comes to the conclusion that the finding of acquittal is well grounded upon the material on record, then notwithstanding the fact that there is alternative view possible in regard to the same incident and situation, but the view that was taken by the trial court would always prevail and that being so, we decline to interfere at this stage.
We, upon careful perusal of the same, hereby affirm the finding of acquittal recorded in judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.01.2021, passed by Special Judge (D.A.A. Act)/Additional District Judge, District Jhansi in Special Case No. 08 of 2005 (State of U.P. vs. Bhatulley and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1771 of 2004, under Sections - 387, 364-Ka and 393 I.P.C., Police Station - Nawabad, District - Jhansi.
Consequently, the leave to appeal is refused and the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.7.2021
S Rawat
