State of U.P. vs Mayaram & others

Y.K.Sangal, J.—Heard learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2009 passed by Sessions Judge, Shravasti acquitting the accused persons/respondents for the charges under Section 323, 504 IPC in S.T. No. 21 of 2005 State vs. Mayaram. As per prosecution case, informant''s brother''s wife Smt. Jagdei was going to public handpump for collecting water. Daughter of the accused Mayaram had thrown dirty water on her. Smt. Jagdei raised objection. Accused persons Mayaram, Chhote, Haggan abused her and they drawn her to their house and beaten her. On her hue and cry informant Mishri Lal reached there. Accused persons had given blow of Lathi, Danda and kicks and fists to him and inflicted injuries. On report, case was entered as noncognizable case. After seeking permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., from the Magistrate, investigation of the case was started. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted in the matter. As the cross case was pending before the court of S.C. S.T. Act so this case was also committed to the court of Session where trial of the accused persons was started. They were charged to face trial under Section 323/34 IPC. In trial statements of witnesses P.W.1 Mishri Lal and P.W. 2 Smt. Jagdei and Ram Gopal Yadav, eye witnesses of the occurrence on behalf of the prosecution were recorded. Statement of the accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. After scrutinizing the evidence and hearing the arguments of the parties'' counsel by the impugned judgment and order, learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons from the charges leveled against them. Aggrieved by this order, the instant appeal has been filed.

Learned AGA was heard on admission of the appeal and leave is to be granted in appeal under the provisions of Section 384 Cr.P.C. And record was perused.

Undisputedly, it was a cross case of the other case registered against the informant etc. for the offence under Section 325, 504 and 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) S.C.S.T Act. Result of the cross case not stated by the learned AGA at the time of arguments. In the present case, injury report of Smt. Jagdei was not produced before the court. Delay was found in lodging the FIR. Delay in medical examination was also found by the trial court without any sufficient explanation. Statement of all the three witnesses of the facts were discussed in detail by the trial court. Learned Sessions Judge has given reasons for disbelieving of the prosecution witnesses. It was found by the learned Sessions Judge that no independent witness was produced in support of prosecution case. There was conflicts in medical evidence and ocular evidence. Locality witness was examined. He has not supported the prosecution case. Place of occurrence not established. Prosecution story was found improbable and it was also held that only in defence the cross case was manufactured. Reasons given by the trial court in passing the judgement of acquittal seen carefully. There are catena of judgements of the Apex Court that if it is found that reasoning are consistent with the evidence as matter of prudence court of appeal should not interfere with the order of acquittal by reappreciating the evidence and taking the some other view. In the present case, reason given by the trial court are not contrary to the weight of evidence. In these circumstances, no interference of the appellate court is warranted in the finding of the trial court.

Appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

Leave to appeal is not granted. Appeal is dismissed summarily.