Decided on September 05,2012



Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.2.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 1/2004, State v. Subhash Chandra Sharma, whereby Subhash Chandra Sharma has been acquittal from the charge of offences levelled against him under Section 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the SC/ST Act. The aforesaid judgment has been assailed on the ground that incident occurred on 28.8.2000, and PW1 Prakash Chandra, the victim, was examined before the trial court on 19.8.2004. PW2 Virendra Kumar and PW3 Charan Singh, witnesses of the complainant/reporter were also examined in the month of September, 2004. So, all the fact witnesses were examined almost after four years of the said incident. Hence, it was not possible for these witnesses as well as for the reporter to depose verbatim and give identical statements and, therefore, contradictions in their deposition, after lapse of such a long period, are bound to occur.
(2.) NO doubt, argument of learned counsel for the revisionist is sound at its own place. Nevertheless, the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that contradictions are so glaring that the learned trial court has rightly disbelieved the statements of the witnesses of the reporter. PW2 Virendra Kumar has stated that the accused Subhash Chandra Sharma slapped 3 to 4 times on the cheek of the reporter, while no such averment has been made in the FIR nor it has been deposed before the trial court by PW1 Prakash Chandrea, the victim himself. It shows that both the witnesses who have been examined by the reporter in his support had actually not seen any occurrence. Apart from his, these witnesses belong to far -off places from the place of occurrence. Moreover, it is an admitted case that civil litigation was pending between the parties when the alleged occurrence has been reported to the police. So, it appears that in order to exert pressure upon Subhash Chandra Sharma, the criminal proceedings were launched against him by lodging the FIR on 30.8.2000 alleging the incident of 28.8.2000. Even this delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained by showing the sufficient cause. No plausible reason has been furnished to explain it. In the circumstances, possibility of false implication of Mr. Subhash Chandra Sharma cannot be gainsaid.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this Court is in total agreement with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Hence, the impugned judgment and order requires no interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 21.2.2005, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 1/2004, State v. Subhash Chandra Sharma, is hereby affirmed. Lower court record be sent back.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.