Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Jageshwar And 2 Ors. on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Siddhartha Varma, Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 109 of 2019
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Jageshwar And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Upon a first information report being lodged, a case under Sections 272, 273 IPC read with Section 60 of Excise Act was registered. Thereafter further investigation followed and the matter was placed before the court of Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. Charges were framed on 20th September, 2017. Upon denial of charges, the trial commenced. From the side of the prosecution, five prosecution witnesses namely, PW-1 Sub-Inspector Arun Kumar, PW-2 Constable Gulab Singh, PW-3 Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar Yadav, PW-4 Sub-Inspector Navin Kumar and PW-5 Constable Pravesh Kumar were examined. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in which they denied the commission of any crime.
PW-1 Arun Kumar, was the Sub-Inspector, who had prepared the memo of recovery and had proved it. He had also stated in his examination-in-chief that Sub-Inspector Rohtash Datt Sharma, Constable Amrish Kumar and Constable Prateek Kumar had gone on the spot upon an information being received from mukhbir (informant) that a vehicle carrying illegal liquor along with rectified liquor could be apprehended if the police party reached on time. It has been stated by him that police party apprehended the vehicle and the two accused namely, Jageshwar and Pawan escaped arrest, however, the driver was arrested at spot. He has stated that he knew the accused from before. From the vehicle liquor in various cans etc. was recovered and as per him, was sealed and kept in Malkhana. In his cross-examination, however, he stated that he was not recognizing the accused persons from before and that there was no case registered against them from before.
PW-2 Prateek Kumar supported the case of PW-1 and stated that there was no case registered against the two accused persons. From the side of the prosecution, further one Constable Subhash Singh was also examined. He also stated that he never knew the accused from before.
Manoj Kumar, who appeared as PW-3 had stated that the sealed samples were sent to a chemical laboratory, but he did not remember when the samples were sent and in which container, the samples were sent. He also admitted that there was no G.D. entry with regard to the samples being sent. PW-4 Sub-Inspector Navin Kumar was also the investigating officer and had prepared the charge-sheet.
Upon analyzing all the evidence brought on record and upon analyzing the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, the court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved the instant appeal has been filed.
Sri Arun Kumar, learned AGA stated that judgment was erroneous in view of the fact that the chemical report was there on record and that had not been looked into properly.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, the Court is of the view that no fault can be found in the view taken by the trial court.
The prosecution witnesses were examined threadbare. It was found that they did not come with a proper case as to how they recognized the accused persons. Further the trial court had also found that there was no record with regard to the fact as to how the samples were collected and how they were sent to the chemical analyst. Still further, it has been found that the report, which has been sent by the chemical analyst could not be connected with the sample as was collected by the police party.
On a careful perusal of the judgment on record, we find that it cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial Court was perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken on the evidence would not give us any ground for interfering with the order of acquittal. Unless the view taken by the Trial Court was a view which could not have been possibly taken on the basis of the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial Court was not a reasonably possible view. In fact, the perusal of the statements of the witnesses definitely shows that the findings of the Trial Court were appropriate.
This Court which is sitting in appeal over a judgment of acquittal as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar alias Gidda & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730 can only interfere in an appeal if the view taken by the Trial Court was not a view which was possible. Considering the inconsistency, improvement, contravention and also the fact that essential ingredients to constitute the offence charged against the accused were not found to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, we are of the view that the Trial Court's view was definitely a possible view. Hence, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Under such circumstances, the Court is of the view that there is absolutely no error in the assessment of the Trial Court.
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
Noman
