Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Shiv Chandra Verma on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1000231 of 2014
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Shiv Chandra Verma
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
The instant application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the State requesting to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 401 of 2011, arising out of Case Crime No. 562 of 2009, under Sections 323, 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki, whereby the accused person has been acquitted of all the charges framed against him.
Learned A.G.A. while pressing the application for grant of leave to appeal submits that the trial court has committed patent illegality in acquitting the accused person from all the charges framed against him, while it was evident on record that the injured/informant had become hostile while under cross-examination but during recording of his examination-in-chief he was intact and has supported the prosecution version of the incident and, moreover, the injuries sustained by him were also proved as the genuineness of the injury report was admitted by the accused person/respondent.
It is further submitted that the trial court has given much importance to the minor contradictions which have emerged in the testimony of the injured/informant/P.W.-1/Baba Goredas while the law in this regard is well-settled that only those contradictions which are affecting the core of the prosecution case is to be given importance and, therefore, the State be granted leave to appeal to challenge the impugned judgment and order whereby the respondent/accused person has been acquitted.
I have perused the judgment of the trial court as well as the record in the background of the submissions made by learned A.G.A. and find that the first information report of this case was lodged by P.W.-1/Baba Goredas, who was priest at Narayanpur Temple situated at Barela, Police Station Ramsanehighat, District Baranaki with the allegations that on 13.08.2009 at about 8:00 pm. when he was at the temple the instant respondent along with two unknown persons had arrived and accused him of being the informer of the police and started assaulting him with 'lathi-danda' whereby the informant had sustained grievous injuries on his head.
After investigation the charge sheet was filed against the instant respondent/accused- Shiv Chandra Verma and charges against him was framed under Sections 323, 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C.
Perusal of the record would also reveal that on 13.08.2009 at 8:35 pm. the injured/informant was medically examined and two lacerated wounds were found on his head while complaint of pain was also stated all over his body and all these injuries were stated to be simple in nature caused by some hard and blunt object. Duration of these injuries were found fresh.
The prosecution in order to prove its case before the trial court presented the informant/injured/P.W.-1/Baba Goredas, P.W.-2/Buddhu and P.W.-3/Shravan Tiwari.
After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused-respondent/Shiv Chandra Verma was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the evidence of the prosecution and claimed innocence.
The trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against respondent/accused and, therefore, acquitted him of all the charges framed against him.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 03.09.2014, the State has filed instant appeal along with an application for grant of leave to appeal.
Perusal of the record would reveal that, though, injured/informant- P.W.-1/Baba Goredas during his in-chief-examination has supported the contents of the first information report but when he was under cross-examination he has specifically stated that the place where the incident had occurred is an isolated place and it was a dark night and all the three assailants had covered their face with cloth and in this background he could not identify the assailants. In his cross-examination, he also stated that he was assaulted from behind and had fainted on the spot and it was only on the information given by the co-villagers he has named the instant accused/respondent Shiv Chandra Verma in the F.I.R. and he also did not hear any intimidation or abuses.
The prosecution witness no.-2/Buddhu as well as P.W.-3/Shravan Tiwar did not support the version of the prosecution in their in-chief-examination and, therefore, declared hostile. Thus, the only evidence which was available in support of the prosecution was the shaky evidence of P.W.-1/Baba Goredas and having regard to his admission made in the cross-examination that due to dark night and as the assailants had covered their faces, he could not identify the assailants and also that he had named the accused person/respondent in the F.I.R. on the information provided by the co-villagers, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case before the trial court and the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused person of the charges framed against him and it cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial Judge is perverse or unreasonable. Per contra the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and the judgment is well reasoned and well discussed.
It is befitting at this juncture to recall that there is initial presumption of innocence in favour of every accused person of a crime. This initial presumption of innocence stands fortified with the acquittal of the accused person(s). So, very strong and cogent reasons are required for interfering in the judgment of acquittal. Keeping in view the aforesaid inherent weaknesses of the prosecution case, I am of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court was a probable and logical view and the judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be not based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record or illegal or illogical or improbable. Therefore, there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference in the judgment of the trial Court is called for. Hence, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is hereby rejected and the application to grant leave to file appeal is dismissed.
Since application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the memorandum of appeal also does not survive. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.1.2023
Praveen
