1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/appellant, Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and have also perused the entire record.

2. By means of the present application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., the State has sought leave to appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 03.04.2013 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.896 of 2008, arising out of Crime No.301/2003, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondents, namely, Bhanupratap Singh, Surender Singh and Naushad of the charges under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short conspectus, is that the first informant, Sureshchandra got a case registered at Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi stating therein that on 15.06.2003 he was carrying some fodder on a tractor, which was driven by Rajeev Ranjan. When at about 12:00 P.M. they reached in front of police outpost, Bichramau, Hardoi the tractor was intercepted by constable Surender Singh and Naushad, respondent nos.2 and 3, respectively and they demanded Rs.200/- as illegal rectification. When the first informant refused to give that money, he was draged in the police station and was assaulted by the police personnel by lathi and danda and Rs.4,000/-, which he was carrying with him was snatched away by the respondent no.1, Bhanu Pratap Singh. When objected by the first informant, he was abused by the respondents also.

4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Ext. Ka-1, a first information report as Case Crime No.301/2003, under Sections 394 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act came to be registered against the respondents at Police Station Kotwali Bilgram, District Hardoi, Ext Ka-2.

5. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Upon conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the respondents under Sections 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, Ext. Ka6.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined prosecution witnesses, PW-1, Surendera Singh, first informant, PW2, Rajeev Ranjan, PW-3, Vijay Kumar Tiwari, PW-4, Gayaprasad, PW-5, Vishram, PW-6 Jaykaran, PW-7, Constable Rajkumar Verma, PW-8, Rajeev Kumar, PW-9, Sarvesh Kumar Mishr and PW-10, Dr. V.V. Tripathi, who has proved the injury report of the injured.

7. The accused respondents were charged under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 504 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

8. No evidence in defence was adduced by the respondents.

9. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused-respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have stated the prosecution story to be false and concocted and also stated themselves to be innocent, who have been falsely implicated in this case.

10. The learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2013 has acquitted the respondents of all the charges.

11. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and order whereby the respondents were acquitted, the State has sought leave to appeal as aforesaid.

12. It is submitted by learned Additional Government Advocate that on the basis of testimonies of witnesses and other material, the prosecution has successfully proved its case but the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial court are wholly unjustified and unwarranted. The learned court below has erred in discarding the consistent testimonies of the witnesses on the ground of minor contradictions which ought to have been ignored. His further submission is that the injuries, which were reported on the person of the first informant was fresh as the same indicated that the alleged incident had happened on the day and time which was reported to be. He, thus, submits that the impugned order 03.04.2013 is liable to be set aside.

13. Having heard learned Additional Government Advocate and upon perusal of material available on record, this Court finds that during trial, the witnesses of fact, PW-1, Surendera Singh, first informant, PW-2, Rajeev Ranjan, PW-3, Vijay Kumar Tiwari, PW-4, Gayaprasad, PW-5, Vishram have turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution case. The statement of PW-6, Jaykaran has been found to be contradictory and the learned trial Court has also noted the fact that he is cousin brother of the first informant. According to the facts of this case, learned trial Court did not find prosecution story to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, which resulted in finding of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court.

This Court is mindful of the fact that the statement of witnesses who have been declared hostile cannot be brushed aside in toto. However, this Court finds that the prosecution witnesses who have turned hostile have not supported the prosecution case in any material aspect and the fact remains undisputed that PW-6, Jaykaran is cousin brother of the first informant and is thus, interested witnesses, whose testimony required close scrutiny. Upon a close scrutiny, learned trial Court rightly found his statement to be unreliable. In these circumstances, the findings of the acquittal recorded by the learned trial court are cogent and based on correct appreciation of material on record.

14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, the learned trial court appears to have rightly recorded the finding of acquittal of the respondents which is based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record.

15. The scope and power of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against the acquittal has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanwat Singh & Others vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1961 SC 715 [LQ/SC/1960/332] , wherein legal position has been summed up thus:

“1. An appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded;

2. The principles laid down in Sheo Swarup v King Emperor reported in AIR 1934 PC 227 [LQ/PC/1934/75] , afforded a correct guide for the appellate Court’s approach to a case disposing of such an appeal

3. The different phraseology used in used in the judgment of this court, such as—

(a)- “substantial and compelling reasons”;

(b)- “good and sufficiently cogent reasons”;

(c)- “strong reasons”, are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion, but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal, but should express the reasons in its judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified.’

To these were added two more in Ramphubala Reddy and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1971 SC 460 [LQ/SC/1970/391] , 463, 464 by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Which are as under :—

(i) The appellate court should also bear in mind the fact that the trail court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness-box, and

(ii) The presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal

16. The aforesaid principles have been consistently followed in following later decisions rendered by Hon’ble Supreme court in Ramesh and Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529, [LQ/SC/2016/1473] Anwar Ali and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166, [LQ/SC/2020/688 ;] Guru Dutt Pathak vs. State of U.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 116 [LQ/SC/2021/2746 ;] and Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2022) 3 SCC 471 [LQ/SC/2022/32 ;] .

17. Thus, having considered the matter in its entirety and in view of settled legal position as stated above, this Court finds that the learned trial court’s findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondents herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence available on record which do not, in any manner, appear to be improbable or perverse.

18. The order of acquittal on the face of evidence appears to be probable view which does not suffer from any infirmity.

19. This Court is, thus, of the considered view that the application for leave to appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, rejected.

20. Since the application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive and the same stands dismissed.