Point of Law: Power of scrutiny exercisable by the High Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C. should not be routinely invoked where the view formed by the trial court was a “possible view.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned Amicus Curiae, for the appellant and Shri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the respondents.

2. By means of the instant appeal under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (herein after referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) the informant-appellant has challenged the judgement and order dated 01.10.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1/Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Mahoba in Special Case No. 47 of 2004 (State Vs. Hari Ram Prajapati and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 196 of 2004 under Sections 387, 307/34, 452, 323/34 and 427 IPC, Police Station Kabrai, District Mahoba, whereby both the accused have been acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the informant-appellant gave a report in the concerned Police Station on 11.05.2004 at 20:45 hours stating that when on the same day at about 4:00 p.m., he was coming to Kabrai from his home, the accused-respondent No. 3 (Dhirendra Singh) blocked the passage by parking his motorcycle in front of Jagdish's house, where the passage is narrow. The informant was going on his motorcycle and he stopped there. Dhanni, Rajju, Hariram Prajapati (the accused-respondent No. 2 and Dhirendra Singh (the accused-respondent No. 3) caught hold of the informant and made him sit there and they assaulted the informant by but of a gun, kicks and fists and said that they will set him free only when he pays Rs. 10,000/-. They threatened to kill him with a gun and country made pistols. Upon finding an opportunity, the informant ran towards his home and Dhanni fired towards the informant with a 315 bore country made pistol with the intention to kill him. However, the shot missed the informant's temple and he had a narrow escape. The informant ran and entered the house of Prakash and the aforesaid people attempted to get the door of the house opened. Thereafter, they entered the informant's house and assaulted the informant's mother Achchhi Devi and sister Sudha with kicks, fists and shoes and destroyed the house-hold goods namely deg (a utensil), CD, TV, Battery and other goods of his shop, which resulted in a loss of about Rs.5,000/-. The accused threatened that if the informant makes a report of it, it will not be good for him. The incident was witnessed by Shaukilal, Bhawanideen and Deshraj Pradhan and they saved him.

4. On the aforesaid allegation, a Case Crime No. 196 of 2004 under Sections 387, 452, 323, 504 and 506 IPC was registered against the accused-respondents. A case under Section 10/12 of Dacoity Affected Area Act was registered against Dhanni. After investigation, a charge sheet for commission of the offences under Sections 387, 307/37, 452, 323/34, 427 IPC was submitted in the Court against the accused-respondents.

5. PW-1, informant-appellant Nokhe Lal, reiterated the allegations made in the FIR and he further stated that the Sub Inspector visited his home on the following day and saw the broken goods. He prepared a list and gave the goods in the custody of his father. He produced the broken goods, namely, a stabilizer, a CD player and a table fan, a tin box, picture tube of a TV etc. before the Court and said that those were the goods which had been broken by the accused-persons. He and his mother has been medically examined in the Government Hospital at Mahoba.

6. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he had stopped his motorcycle about 3 meters before the platform where the accused persons made him sit. The accused-persons had hit him with sticks, buts and kicks. They had hit him 10-15 times with sticks and 10-12 times with buts. They had hit him on his back and below the shoulder but not on his head and face. However, the assault did not cause any injury mark or bleeding. They did not hit him hard but hit him slowly. He reached the house of Prakash Vishwakarma at about 4:15 p.m. During the entire period, he kept on shouting but nobody came th