State of U.P (now State of Uttarakhand) v. Atol Singh
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 11 Sep 2012
- Bench
- PRAFULLA C PANT
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 207, 313, 378
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 s. 3(1)(x)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 504, 506
- U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 s. 35
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel for the respondent, and also perused the lower court record. (3) Prosecution story, in brief, is that on
16.02.1997, at about 4.40 p.m, complainant Roshan Lal (PW1) had gone to Nagun market. It is alleged that there accused Atol Singh (present respondent), who was election agent of Village Pradhan (with whom the complainant had enmity arisen out of election) uttered abusive language insulting the complainant for his being member of scheduled caste. As per the prosecution case, said incident took place in the presence of Vijay Pal Singh Chauhan, Mahavir Singh (PW2), Vinod Kumar, Amar Singh, Kali Ram and others. Though, complainant Roshan Lal did not lodge First Information Report with Patwari of the area, but he gave a written report (EX A1) to the Chief 3 Judicial Magistrate, and obtained his orders directing the Naib Tehsildar to register the case and investigate the crime. (In Uttarakhand hills certain Revenue officials have been given police powers). On the basis of said order dated
18.02.1997, Naib Tehsildar, Prem Lal Tiwari (PW5) registered a case on 22.02.1997, and investigated the crime. After interrogating the witnesses, the Investigating Officer submitted charge (EX A-5) against the accused/respondent Atol Singh, for his trial in respect of offences punishable under section 504 and 506 of I.P.C., and one punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989. (4) The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, on receipt of the charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the Special Court, for trial. On
23.01.1998, Special Judge, Tehri Garhwal, after hearing the parties framed charge of offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of 4 Atrocities), Act, 1989, and in respect of offences punishable under section 504 and 506 of I.P.C., against the accused/respondent Atol Singh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this prosecution got examined PW1 Roshan Lal (complainant), PW2 Mahaveer Singh (declared hostile), PW3 Pyare Lal, PW4 Mor Singh (formal witness) and PW5 Prem Lal Tiwari Naib Tehsildar (who investigated the crime). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity and he further stated that the evidence adduced against him is false. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After recording the evidence of the parties, the trial court found that the prosecution has failed to prove charge of offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, and also relating to offences punishable under section 504 and 506 of I.P.C. Consequently, the accused Atol Singh was acquitted vide judgment and order
Operative part
10.03.1999, passed by Special Judge/Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Special 5 Trial No. 15 of 1997. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated passed by the trial court this appeal was filed by the State before Allahabad High Court in the year 1999, against acquittal of the accused which was transferred to this Court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act 2000 (central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. (5) Learned counsel for the State argued before this Court that the trial court has erred in law in disbelieving the prosecution case as narrated by PW1 Roshan Lal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/respondent submitted that not only the First Information Report is highly belated, but the prosecution story narrated by PW1 Roshan Lal also does not get corroboration either from PW2 Mahaveer Singh or from any independent witness. (6) No doubt, PW1 Roshan Lal has stated that on 16.02.1997, at about 4.40 p.m. the accused Atol Singh hurled abuses at him and insulted him for being a member of scheduled caste, but his testimony is not corroborated from the statement of PW2 Mahaveer Singh, who has been declared 6 hostile. The trial court has rightly mentioned in its judgment that though it is admitted by PW1 Roshan Lal that at the time of incident Amar Singh, Vinod Kumar, Bharat Singh and Ganesh Prasad were also present, but none of them were got examined by the prosecution, for the reasons best known to it. From the statement of PW5 Prem Lal, Investigating Officer it appears that he did interrogate the witnesses Ganesh Prasad, Kali Ram, Vinod Kumar and Amar Singh, who were said to be present at the time of incident, but they did not support the version given by the complainant. (7) In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court is perverse or against the evidence on record. (8) It is settled principle of law that in a case of appeal against acquittal if two views are possible and the trial court has taken a view which is logical and based on evidence on record, the appellate court should not interfere with it only for the reason that second view could also have been taken. 7 (9) Therefore, this Court finds no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Lower court record be sent back. Dt.11.09.2012 N.P (Prafulla C. Pant, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 207, 313, 378; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)(x); Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 504, 506; U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 — s. 35.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 11 Sep 2012. The bench was PRAFULLA C PANT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.