Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ram Naresh Singh And 3 Others on 7 February, 2017
Author: Harsh Kumar
Bench: Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 52 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 525 of 2017 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Ram Naresh Singh And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard learned AGA and perused the record.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 26.10.2016 in Special S.T. No.11 of 2009, the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hamirpur has convicted and sentenced the accused-respondents for the offences under sections 323 and 324 IPC and acquitted them from the charges under sections 504 IPC and 3 (i) (x) S.C./S.T. Act Upon hearing learned AGA and perusal of record, I find that as per prosecution case, the incident in question taken place on 3.9.2006 at the fields and in the alleged incident, the accused-respondents committed marpeet and called the first informant and his associates with caste name and intentionally insulted them with an intention to provoke breach of peace. Learned Trial Judge after analyzing the entire evidence on record has held that the incident of marpeet did take place and certain injuries were caused by accused-respondents to prosecution party and so the trial court convicted the accused-respondents for the offences under sections 323/34 and 324/34 IPC and sentenced each of them with a fine of Rs.500/- under section 323/34 IPC and Rs.1000/- under section 324/34 IPC with default clause. The trial court analyzing the evidence on record has specifically held that the fact of calling the first informant and his brother with caste name at public place has not been proved beyond doubt and the specific words, which were allegedly uttered during the incident by the accused-respondents or any of them have not been stated by the prosecution witnesses in their statements on oath.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the trial court has not committed any mistake in coming to the conclusion for acquitting the accused-respondents from the offences under sections 504 IPC and 3(i)(x) S.C./S.T. Act and has neither committed any manifest error of law nor has misread or misinterpreted any evidence on record.
It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified".
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned AGA has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the impugned order and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order or for substituting the same with order of conviction. The application u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The application u/s 378 (3) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 7.2.2017 Tamang Order on Memo of Appeal Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Dismissed.
For order, see order of date passed on application for grant of leave to file appeal.
Order Date :- 7.2.2017 Tamang