The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against the accused's acquittal. Upholding the Special Judge's view, the court held that prosecution testimony suffered from contradictions and delays, warranting no interference under settled appellate principles.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:168032
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6499 of 2019 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Vishwa Prakash Pandey Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Counsel for Respondent :- Pavan Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
This appeal has been filed against the acquittal order and judgment dated 12.07.2019 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act in Sessions Trial No. 709 of 2015 ( State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Vishwa Prakash Pandey) in Case Crime No. 95 of 2010, under Sections 323,504 I.P.C. and 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Sikhera, District Muzaffarnagar.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that incident is dated 09.01.2010 while the first information report has been lodged on 21.01.2010. Initially an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. was moved by the Raghesh Kumar the cousin of the victim Constable 737 Om Prakash. On the basis of this application under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., the first information report was lodged and after investigation, final report was submitted by the police. Against this final report, a protest petition was filed by cousin of the victim and on the basis of the protest petition, a complaint was registered. Vide judgment and order dated 12.07.2019, accused Vishwa Prakash Pandey was acquitted of the charges under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and 3 (1)(10) SC/ST Act.
It is argued by the learned A.G.A. that in this incident, cousin of the first informant Constable 737 Om Prakash, was thrashed at the hands of the opposite party namely, Vishwa Prakash Pandey. His medical report has been placed before this Court. It is submitted that out of two eye witnesses mentioned in the first information report, one eye witness has been produced he does not support the version of the first information report. The first informant is not an eye witness. The only eye witness of the fact is the injured himself, who has supported the prosecution version in his statement, but the trial court has ignored the statement of the injured and has acquitted the accused, hence prayer is made accordingly.
Learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that in the
examination-in-chief of the injured and in cross-examination, there is contradiction regarding place of occurrence. The victim is said to have thrashed at the hand of the opposite party by hard and blunt object. The injury No. 3 is said to be caused by dragging while there is no such version of the injured that he was dragged too during the incident. It is argued that judgment passed by the trial court is well discussed judgment having no error in the eye of law.
From the perusal of record, it is found that in the first information report, two independent witnesses of the incident are shown, but out of these two witnesses, one witness has been produced and that witness too did not support the prosecution version. He was declared hostile and in his cross-examination also, no faithful evidence in support of the prosecution could come. PW-1 Raghesh Kumar first informant is not an eye witness. The only eye witness is the injured himself his injury report is on record but these injuries were caused by the accused was to be proved. As per finding of the trial court, in the examination-in-chief of the first informant, it has come that when he came from the duty and asked the accused to deposit his rifle, he was asked to go on duty to the other place, some altercation took place between accused and the injured. The allegation is to beat up the victim by the accused, but in his cross-examination he has said that when after having talks with the accused, he went to his Barrack the incident took place there. As per finding of the trial court in the statement of eye witness injured, there is contradiction regarding the place of occurrence. It is found by the trial court that incident was dated 09.01.2010 while first information report was lodged on 21.03.2010 on the basis of an application under section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. of the victim. The victim got himself medically examined on 11.01.2010. The medical examination of the victim was not done on the basis of the letter from the police station.
From the perusal of the record, it is found true that apart from witnesses of fact no formal witnesses were produced by the State in the trial court but the reason of the same is clear that the formal execution of the documents was admitted by the learned counsel for the accused, hence, the trial court did not find any need to summon the formal witnesses to prove the document filed by the prosecution. The Apex Court has held in catena of judgments that the appellant court must bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the acquittal by the trial court bolsters the presumption of innocence. It is the settled law that if the view taken by the trial court is a plausible view, this
court is not justifiable in reversal merely because a different view is possible. The appellant court could only interfere with the judgement of the trial court if it is found to be perverse i.e. conclusions of the trial court are contrary to the evidence on record or its entire approach in dealing with the evidence is found to be purely illegal leading to miscarriage of justice.
From the above judgment, it is clear that the trial court did not find the statements of two witnesses of fact to be reliable being the witnesses to be interested witnesses. The trial court found the statement of the witnesses to be contradictory. Learned A.G.A. could not point out any error that the the finding of the trial court is perverse or against the evidence on record.
I am of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable and plausible view to which no perversity could be demonstrated.
The appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
Order Date :- 21.8.2023
T.S.
Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's finding acquitting the accused of assault and caste-oppression charges was perverse or against the evidence.
Whether the contradiction between prosecution witnesses justified reversal of the acquittal.
State of U.P.
Vishwa Prakash Pandey
Sadhna Rani Thakur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
