2022 Supreme(All) 931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, VIKAS BUDHWAR, JJ.
State - Appellant
Versus
Durga Prasad and Others - Respondents
Government Appeal No. 2450 of 1986
Decided On : 12-09-2022

Headnote:

ACQUITTAL - SECTION 378 OF CR.P.C. - CHALLENGE TO JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL - OFFENCES U/S 147, 304/149, 323 IPC - FIR LODGED BY FIRST INFORMANT - WRITTEN COMPLAINT SUBMITTED ON 10.07.1982 - INCIDENT TOOK PLACE AT 12 NOON ON 10.07.1982 - FIRST INFORMANT ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER WENT TO GRAZE CATTLE IN AGRICULTURE FIELD - AGRICULTURE CROP BEING PADDY WAS CULTIVATED - AT 05:00 PM ON THE FATEFUL DAY ACCUSED TRENCHED IN THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD ALONG WITH CATTLE AND TRAMPLED THE PADDY AND SUGAR CANE CROP - PROTEST WAS SOUGHT TO BE MADE BY FIRST INFORMANT - ABUSES WERE HURLED UPON THE FIRST INFORMANT - FIRST INFORMANT WENT TO THE HOUSE OF ACCUSED AND RAISED PROTEST - PENAL SECTION WHICH FOUND ITS PRESENCE IN FIR SO LODGED BY THE FIRST INFORMANT ON 10.07.1982 AT 21:20 HOURS WAS TRANSFORMED INTO SECTION 147/304/323 IPC - S.I. SRI RAM DAYAL SINGH WAS NOMINATED AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER - CHARGES WERE READ OVER TO THE ACCUSED - ACCUSED PLEADED NON-GUILTY AND CLAIMED TO BE TRIED - PROSECUTION IN ORDER TO BRING HOME THE CHARGES PRODUCED PROSECUTION WITNESSES - DEFENCE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS STAND HAS SUBMITTED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS - TRIAL COURT BY VIRTUE OF JUDGMENT AND THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE HAS ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED - STATE OF U.P. IS BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE PROCEEDINGS PURPORTED TO BE U/S 378 OF THE CR.P.C. - COURT HELD THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIAL COURT IS A POSSIBLE AND PLAUSIBLE VIEW - ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

A written complaint was submitted on 10.07.1982 by the first informant being Rajendra Prasad S/o Chandra Bhushan Prasad R/o Village Kewai, P.S. Ghazipur, District Fatehpur before the Police Station Ghazipur, District Fatehpur with an allegation that the accused herein who were seven in number at the time of the filing of the appeal had committed offences at 12 in the noon on 10.07.1982 when the first informant being Rajendra Prasad along with his brother Virendra had gone along with the cattle in the agriculture field which was owned by them near the tube well in Kolanhar. Agriculture crop being paddy was cultivated and the same was in matured condition. However, at 05:00 in the evening on the fateful day i.e. 10.07.1982 the accused-respondent no. 5 Prem Narayan S/o Mishri Lal who was grazing his cattle trenched in the agricultural field along with cattle and trampled the paddy and the sugar cane crop so present therein causing destruction. Protest was sought to be made by the first informant Rajendra, however, the same was not liked by the accused Prem Narayan and he hurled abuses upon the first informant. From there the first informant along with his cattle straight away went to the house of the Prem Narayan raising protest. Prosecution further alleges that the said protest was not accepted however, rather to the contrary at that point of time Durga Prasad S/o Kali Charan, Mishri Lal S/o Durga Prasad committed the role of extortion while instigating the accused Dhunnu, Jagat Narayan and Prem Narayan and in turn they instigated the brother Ram Kumar and nephew Santosh Kumar S/o Mewa Lal. Thereafter, all the accused aided with wooden stick chased the first informant Rajendra Prasad and the first informant run away and when he reached near the main gate of the house of Jiya Lal then the accused gave a blow with the wooden stick upon the first informant and witnessing the same the elder brother of the first informant Bajrang Prasad and his father Chandra Bhushan came forward to rescue the first informant, however they were also administered blow with the aid of wooden stick pursuant whereto they fell down and witnessing the said incident Ram Lal Tiwari S/o Devi Lal and Bishun Dayal S/o Bhikuyuwa and Lakhan S/o Devi Lal came to rescue however, on account of the onslaught of administering wooden stick, the father of the first informant Chandra Bhusan became unconscious and so much so the first informant Rajendra and his elder brother Bajrang Prasad also sustained injuries and thereafter they took their father Chandra Bhushan in a bullock cart to the police station for lodging of written complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The view taken by the learned trial court is a possible and plausible view. Nonetheless, this Court further finds that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidences and has given cogent reasons in arriving to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the commission of the offences by the accused herein beyond doubt. Nevertheless, this Court cannot substitute the views so taken by the learned trial court once the same is not actuated by perversity.

Issues: Whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible and plausible view.

Ratio Decidendi: The view taken by the trial court is a possible and plausible view. Nonetheless, this Court further finds that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidences and has given cogent reasons in arriving to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the commission of the offences by the accused herein beyond doubt. Nevertheless, this Court cannot substitute the views so taken by the learned trial court once the same is not actuated by perversity.

Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed.