Jageshwar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 5006 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 78 of 2019
 

 
Applicant :- Jageshwar Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshu Agrawal,Raghvendra Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anita Singh,Suman Lata
 

 
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard Shri Chandan Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Pranshu Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant as well as Ms. Suman Lata, learned counsel appearing for respondent-accused persons as well as Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicant requesting to grant special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2019, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.13, Raebareli, in Criminal Case No. 482 of 2010, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Raebareli, whereby all the accused persons have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.

Learned counsel for the applicant/complainant while pressing application for grant of special leave to appeal, submits that the trial court has committed manifest illegality in appreciating the evidence available on record and it recorded the findings of aquittal on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

It is vehemently submitted that the trial court in order to give the benefit of doubt to the accused persons has itself recorded self-contradictory findings and has completely given go-by to the principles that due to the lapse of time and having regard to the difference in perceiving an instance natural contradictions of minor nature are bound to occur in the testimony of the witnesses and the trial court instead of appreciating the evidence in the background of this natural behaviour of the witnesses has given much importance and significance to the minor contradictions which have occurred in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and have acquitted the accused persons on the basis of irregular appreciation of evidence. Thus, special leave to appeal be granted to the complainant/accused in order to challenge the impugned judgment and order.

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand, submits that the matter pertains to the complaint case.

Ms. Suman Lata, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents submits that no illegality or to say any irregularity has been committed by the trial court and findings of the trial court that the complainant had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there were material contradictions in the testimony of P.W.-1/complainant Jageshwar Singh and P.W.-2, Ram Prakash and P.W.-3, Shiv Kumar are based on the evidence and no illegality has been committed by the trial court in exonerating the respondents.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is transpired that a First Information Report was lodged by the complainant against the private respondents at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Raebareli as Case Crime No. 1213 of 2007 under Sections 447, 448, 504, 352 and 427 I.P.C. and after thorough investigation, the Closure Report (Final Report) was submitted by the investigating officer. However, the informant/complainant had filed a Protest Petition which was registered/considered as complaint and after recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and his witness under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the accused persons/respondents were summoned to face trial under Section 447, 448, 504, 352 and 427 I.P.C.

During the course of trial, after recording of the evidence of the complainant under Section 244 Cr.P.C, the charges against the accused persons/respondents were framed under Section 447, 448, 504, 352 and 427 I.P.C., to which the accused persons/respondents denied and claimed trial.

The prosecution in order to prove its case has relied on the testimonies of P.W.-1/complainant Jageshwar Singh, P.W.-2/ Ram Prakash and P.W.-3/ Shiv Kumar and apart from the same has also relied on various documentary evidence.

After conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the evidence produced by the complainant against him and claimed innocence, however, no evidence was produced by the accused persons/respondents in their defence.

The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record acquitted the accused persons of all the charges framed against them and aggrieved by the same, the complainant/informant has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. requesting to grant special leave to appeal in order to challenge the impugned judgment and order of the acquittal passed by the trial court.

Perusal of the judgment of the trial court in the background of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties would reveal that it has been stated by the complainant in F.I.R. as well as in the protest petition which was later on treated as complaint that the complainant/informant was a tenant of one R.K. Agrawal and in the mid of tenancy, the said shop was sold by R.K. Agrawal to Dr. Neena Mehrotra (Respondent No.1). It is also stated that the complainant being a tenant attempted to pay the rent of the premises to the respondent No. 1, but she refused to take the rent and on this the complainant started depositing rent in the court. It is alleged that on 20.06.2007, the accused persons/respondents along with some other persons had arrived at the rented accommodation/shop on 20.06.2007 at about 02.00 PM and started demolishing the shop and have also caused mischief by throwing the necessary utensils of the complainant and when the complainant asked them to refrain, they intimidated him of his life. It is also stated that the complainant had moved application to the Circle Officer of the Police, Raebareli, but no further proceedings was done and on 24.06.2007 at about 12.00 PM, he again got information that the accused persons are again committing mischief in his shop. It is also apprehended that respondent No. 2, Dr. R.K. Mehrotra, who is possessing the adjoining shop is attempting to remove the intervening wall situated between the two shops in order to dispossess the complainant.

As stated earlier, after investigation, a Final Report was submitted by the investigating officer and on protest petition being filed the same was treated as complaint.

The trial court in order to arrive at a conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, has opined that P.W.-1 Jageshwar Singh in his statement recorded before the trial court has admitted that at the time of committing mischief by the accused persons, he was alone and on 24.06.2007, when the accused persons were allegedly committing mischief, he was informed by P.W.-3 Shiv Kumar and when he arrived at the shop, the accused persons had fled away. Thus, the trial court was of the view that the incident pertaining to 24.06.2007 was not witnessed by the complainant. The trial court also opined that the complainant has not issued any notice to the respondents in order to attract the provisions as contained under Sections 447 and 448 I.P.C. It is also noticed by the trial court that there is material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses pertaining to the presence of the independent public witnesses and it has not been specified by the complainant or any of his witness as to what abuses were heard by the accused persons. The trial court has also noticed the admission of P.W.-2 Ram Prakash to the tune that all the material, which was in the shop was of Dr. Verma and there was no belongings of the complainant present in the disputed shop and in this background, the trial court was of the opinion that when no belongings of the complainant were present in the disputed shop, committing mischief is not possible pertaining to the same and having considered the above mentioned discrepancies appearing in the case of the complainant, the trial court came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Having perused the judgment of the trial court, in the background of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the findings recorded by the trial court, it could not be said that the findings of the trial court are not based on the evidence available on record.

It is recalled that the criminal trial proceeds with presumption of evidence in favour of the accused person and the same becomes fortified by their acquittal and thus, very strong reasons and grounds are required for interference in the judgment of acquittal. More so, in the complaint case where special leave to appeal is required in direct contrast to Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. wherein only leave to appeal is required and in the considered opinion of this Court, the special leave to appeal could only be accorded when the judgment of the trial court is patently absurd and is not based on the evidence available on record or in other words, is based on surmises and conjectures.

I do not find any fit ground to intervene in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court and there appears no merit in the application moved on behalf of the complainant for grant of special leave.

Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the application for grant of special leave to appeal on behalf of complainant is hereby rejected.

Since application for grant of special leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal would also not survive. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

Order Date :- 15.2.2023

G.Singh