Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The application for leave to appeal has been moved for permission to file an appeal against the impugned judgement and order dated 11.9.2009 passed by Special Judge, (D.A.A.), Budaun in S.S.T. No.111 of 2000 (State vs. Raju Kumar Singh and others) under sections 392, 365, 354 and 506 IPC.

Learned counsel for complainant/appellant contended that the impugned judgement is wrong on facts and law and is liable to be set aside.

The brief facts relating to the complaint case are that Rajendra Singh filed a complaint case with the allegation that his niece Km. Akhilesh aged about 14 years had gone to the shop of accused Rajeev Kumar Singh at about 7.30 p.m. on 12.2.2005 when Rajeev Kumar Singh and his brother Sanjeev Kumar Singh were going to operate the floor mill within the same premises; that both the accused respondent nos. 2 and 3 caught hold of his niece with an intention of commit loot and forcibly taken out her gold ring, gold chain and payal; that on alarm raised by her, Anekpal Singh and Dhanveer Singh and several other persons reached on the spot and seen that both the accused had detained his niece Km. Akhilesh with the help of unauthorized arms and when the witnesses attempted to make rescue of victim, the unauthorized fire arms were pointed at them because of which they continued to watch the incident peacefully; that the two accused threatened of life in case action is taken and when F.I.R. was not lodged despite the application on 27.2.2016 to S.S.P. complaint case was filed.

Upon hearing the counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that the learned trial court has discussed and analyzed the prosecution evidence in detail and found that P.W.-1 Rajendra Singh, the complainant is not an eye witness of the incident. The statement of P.W.2 Dhanveer Singh, the alleged eye witness is of full of contradictions and while has stated in his examination in chief at one point that he reached the place of occurrence on alarm from inside the shop, on the other hand, he has stated that he had accompanied the victim girl. P.W.2 has further stated in his examination chief that the incident continued for a period of half an hour and fire arms were pointed on them, but in his cross examination he has stated that fire arms were not pointed on them. As against the statement of P.W.2 that incident lasted for half an hour, the victim P.W.3 has stated that the incident finished only within two minutes. The defence of accused-respondents is that the entire prosecution story is false and concocted and has been malafidely cooked up, to avoid payment of Rs.7,000/- which was due on the complainant, towards purchases made on credit from time to time.

It is also pertinent to mention that the complaint has been lodged after a period of more than one year from the date of incident of which no plausible reason has been given, and no independent witness of the incident has been produced.

It is noteworthy that the incident of looting 3 ornaments from a girl either by snatching or on pistol point, may not continue for half an our under any imagination. In any case in committal of such incidents the accused remains in haste and so the statement of P.W.2 Dhanveer, the alleged eye witness, which is self contradictory may not be believed and in absence of evidence of any independent witness the complaint case may not be treated to have been proved by any cogent, trustworthy and independent evidence.

It is also pertinent to mention that the incident in question is of village and age of the victim girl is 14 years, so it may not be believed that in ordinary course a person would allow such a minor girl to wear so much of ornaments of gold including chain and ear rings and payal of which not even approximate weight or cost has been disclosed. The above facts further creates a doubt over truthfulness of complaint case and strengthens the defence version.

In the circumstances, I find that the learned trial court has not committed any mistake in passing the impugned order.

It is settled principle of law that if there can be two views on one point and the trial court has taken one view at the time of passing of acquittal order, the same may not be interfered with in appeal merely for the reason that other view could have been taken, unless the finding of trial court is perverse or suffer from manifest error.

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 counsel for the applicant has failed to show any legal infirmities, incorrectness or perversity in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the impugned order of acquittal and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

The application under section 378 (4) Cr.P.C. for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed.