Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs State of U.P. and Another

Fresh cases have been revised. None appears for the appellant to press this appeal u/s 372 Cr.P.C. even in the revised list.

This appeal arises out of the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Bareilly dated 28.1.2014 acquitting the accused-respondent under Sections 386, 307 I.P.C. & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act in S.T. No. 337 of 2011.

We have perused the judgment and order of the trial court and considered the arguments of learned A.G.A.

The appellant in this case was a Junior Engineer posted at Kila Sub-Station. On 11.8.2009 at 9:00 p.m. when he was sitting at the sub-station on his chair alongwith other private employees & contractors then the accused-respondent arrived there and fired with a country made pistol near his head which missed. Immediately, the appellant stood up and the accused-respondent started asking him for Rs. 12,000/- then the accused-respondent put the country made pistol in his waist and attacked the informant with a sword. The persons present at the spot saved the appellant and ousted the accused from the campus. The prosecution has examined the appellant Ashok Kumar as P.W. 1, Jhamman Lal as P.W. 2 & Syed Wajahat Ali as P.W. 3 (contractors) who were the eye witnesses of this case. Accused-respondent had taken the plea that he has been falsely implicated by the witnesses and Rs. 12, 000/- was handed over to the appellant by him for depositing his electricity bill. Neither the appellant handed-over any receipt for the same nor he returned Rs. 12, 000/- to him. The learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent on the ground that even though the country made pistol was fired on the appellant and even he was assaulted with a sword but he has not sustained any injury whatsoever. If the accused-respondent had assaulted the appellant then the persons present at the spot would not have ousted him, from the spot. Rather they would have apprehended him. Only two witnesses P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 have been examined, who were contractors under the appellant. The accused-respondent has been falsely implicated because an F.I.R. under Sections 420, 406, 386, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. had been registered at P.S. Kila, District Bareilly against the appellant by him in which a summoning order was also issued under Sections 406, 504 I.P.C.

We, therefore, see no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial court calling for interference in this appeal against acquittal as it cannot be held that the view taken by the trial court was not a possible view on the evidence. Accordingly, we find no good ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal.

The application for leave to appeal is rejected.

For the reasons disclosed for refusing the application for leave to appeal, the appeal stands dismissed.