Dismissed

Ram Sajeevan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023A372/110/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. regarding alleged assault and SC/ST offenses, the High Court rejected the appellant's appeal. Upholding the trial court's acquittal of the respondents, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt due to lack of medical evidence and inconsistent witness testimony, finding the trial court's view plausible and non-perverse.

What did the court decide?

The appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Ram Sajeevan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 110 of 2016

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Sajeevan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite parties and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., has been instituted by the complainant against the judgement and order dated 08.06.2016, passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act at Hamirpur, in special case nos. 41/2013 and 42/2013, arising out of case crime no. 78/2007, under Sections 379, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act, Police Station Biwanr, District Hamirpur.

¶7

The complainant had given applications to the District Magistrate, Hamirpur and to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, alleging that the accused-respondents who were the sons of Ram Avatar Gupta, had given their agricultural land for Rs. 3,000/-, on rent to the complainant. The complainant had sown sugarcane in the said land. When the crop got ready, the accusedrespondents on 02.02.2004, assaulted him, his wife and children and forcibly harvested the crop, value of Rs. 10,000/-.

¶8

On this complaint, the FIR in question came to be registered under Sections 379, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X SC/ST

¶9

Act. After completing inquiry, the charge-sheet was submitted. The cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the trial and after completing formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case filed was committed on 26.08.2013 and got trial of the accused applicant. On 14.08.2014, the charge was framed against the accused-respondents under Sections 379, 504, 506, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)X SC/ST Act. The prosecution to prove its case, denied the charge and claimed the trial.

¶10

The prosecution to prove its case, examined PW-1 Ram Jeevan, the complainant, PW-2 Surendar @ Mahesh, son of complainant, PW-3 Smt. Mayarani, wife of the complainant and PW-4 Sri A.K. Singh, retired Circle Officer who has investigated the case. After evidence of the prosecution got over, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they also laid defense evidence as DW-1 Sri Hari Kisan.

¶11

The learned trial court has found that though it was alleged that the complainant, his wife and children were badly assaulted but there was no medical evidence to support allegation of any injury on the alleged victims.

¶12

The trial court also found that there was no evidence on record for taking the land by the complainant on rent from the accused. No recovery was effected. It has been further held that the alleged abuse in the name of accused were given at a public place and DW-1, who stated that he was present at the place of incident specifically denied any such incident for which the accused were charge-sheeted and were trialed. In view thereof, the trial court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and they have been acquitted.

¶13

It is settled law that in appeal against conviction, the appellate court should interfere only when the judgement of the trial court is perverse and it is not based on evidence. If the view taken by the trial court is one of the plausible view, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgement and order of the trial court.

¶14

I have considered and perused the impugned judgement and record and I do not find that the view taken by the trial court is an impossible view and judgement and order passed by the learned trial court is perverse. Thus, I find no merit in the present appeal and it is hereby rejected .

¶15

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Suraj

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Sajeevan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sajeevan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Constable Sumit Gurjar @ Sumit Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shankar Singh and 10 Others Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Satyendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others