Hari Nandan vs Ramjeet, Mohan, Anrup and Chaurangi

R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is a revision against the judgment and order dated 29.9.1986 passed by Sri Sachidanand Shukla then VIIth Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Azamgarh acquitting the accused opposite parties No. 1 to 4 in the offence under Sections 308, 308/34, 323 and 323/34 I.P.C.

The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the revisionist Hari Nandan lodged a F.I.R. against the opposite parties No. 1 to 4 at Police Station Mohamdabad District Azamgarh on 25.10.1981 at 12.10 P.M. with these allegations that he has got his Abadi land in front of his house at village Bhati Kala, P.S. Mohamdabad. That land is in his possession and on the above date at about 9.30A.M. his Pattidars namely Ramjeet, Mohan, Anurup and Chaurangi came there and started to dig it. Then his wife and son Braj Bhushan prohibited them from doing so. The accused started abusing his wife and son and attacked them from spade and Lathis; upon noise he and other witnesses reached there and protected his wife and son. His wife received a grievous injury which was dangerous to her life. The accused had caused j injury upon her head from spade with intention to kill her arid she had lost her senses. It was, therefore, prayed that necessary action may be taken into the matter. On the basis of the above report the police registered a case under Sections 308, 323, 324 and 504 I.P.C. and investigated the same. The injuries of Braj Bhushan and Smt. Sahdei wife of the complainant were examined. After completion of the investigation the police submitted a charge sheet in the case under Sections 308, 323, 324, 504 I.P.C. The case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The accused Ramjeet was charged u/s 308 I.P.C., accused Mohan, Anurup and Chaurangi were charged u/s 308/34 I.P.C, and all the accused were charged u/s 323/34 I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty" and claimed trial. The prosecution examined the complainant Hari Nandan as P.W. 1. He narrated the entire case on oath and also proved his written report "Ext Ka-1, Smt. Sahdei Devi wife of the complaint was examined as P.W. 2 and Jhalmal an eye witness of the incident was examined as P.W. 3. No other witness was produced by the prosecution as the accused waived formal proof of Chile-report. G.D., injuries of the injured persons, site plan and these documents were marked as Ext Ka-2 to Ka-7.

The accused in their statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the entire prosecution allegations and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. They did not produce any defence.

The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, after hearing of the case, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He, therefore, acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved with that judgment and order the complainant filed this revision.

Today when the case was called out no one appeared on behalf of the revisionist, hence the arguments of the learned A.G.A. as well as of the learned counsel for the accused opposite parties, who were present in court, were heard and the record was perused.

It may be mentioned that the accused opposite party No. 3 Anrup had died during the pendency of the revision and so this revision has abated so far as he is concerned.

After a careful perusal of the record and the judgment of the trial court and after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused opposite parties and for the State, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge. It is to be seen that no appeal has been filed by the State against the order of acquittal. The scope of the revision is very much limited and in the revision merits of the finding of facts recorded by the court below can not be considered , and only this aspect of the case is to be considered whether there is any illegality in the order passed by the trial court. From perusal of the record arid the judgment of the trial court, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. If the finding of the lower court is perverse on any factual aspect that aspect of perversity can also be treated to be an illegality in the order but there is no such perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. He has given cogent reasons for discarding the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 on the basis of their cross reexamination and there is neither any perversity nor illegality in that appreciation of evidence. At the most it can be argued that two views were possible on appreciation of the evidence one in favour of the prosecution and the other in favour of the accused. But as pointed out above, the scope of revision is very much limited, and in the revision the reappraisal of evidence which can be done in an appeal, is riot possible, and since the trial court has taken a view in favour of the accused on appraisal of that evidence, and when there is nothing on record to show that there is any perversity in appreciation of that evidence, the findings of the trial court can not be set aside.

The revision, in this way, has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment and order of the trial court dated 29.9.1986 passed by Sri Sachidanand Shukla, then VIIth Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Azamgarh are confirmed.