# Dwarika Prasad v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 21 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-08-23 - **Bench:** Pramod Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dwarika-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44236 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 8 All. Dwarika Prasad Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 21 (2016) 8 ILRA 21 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Application U/S 482 No.- 25226 Of 2016 Dwarika Prasad ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for Applicant: Vinod Singh Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A. Held At the stage of considering a complaint under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, the Magistrate must be satisfied that a prima facie case exists for summoning the accused. The Magistrate is not bound to accept all evidence at face value; he can assess whether the evidence is reliable or believable before issuing process. If upon evaluation of evidence the Magistrate finds the complaint doubtful or not credible, he is justified in dismissing it under Section 203 CrPC. The revisional court and High Court (under Section 482 CrPC) cannot reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible. Interference under inherent jurisdiction is warranted only when findings are perverse or illegal; not when the trial court has taken a plausible view based on material on record. Where the trial court, after proper consideration, finds that no prima facie case is made out, dismissal of complaint is valid and does not call for interference. Since the findings of the trial court were not perverse and were based on evaluation of evidence, no interference was warranted, and the application was dismissed. CASE LAW CITED M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. (1998 SC 128) (Delivered by Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the records. 2. The complaint case no. 336 of 2015 (Dwarika Prasad Vs. Sukharm and others) was filed for prosecution of opposite parties under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 354, 323, 504 and 506 IPC for alleged maltreatment and molestation of wife of complainant by eight 22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES opposite parties including a lady. After accepting evidences under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the ACJM, Court No.-5 had passed order dated 2.4.2016, by which said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 3. Against said order of trial court, Criminal Revision no. 252 of 2016 (Dwarika Prasad Vs. State of U.P.) was preferred by complainant, which was dismissed by the judgment dated 23.7.2016 of Sessions Judge, Aligarh, by which order dated 2.4.2016 of trial court was confirmed. Against said orders of trial court as well as the revisional court, present application has been moved for exercising inherent jurisdiction and with request to pass order of cognizance and summoning against proposed accused persons/ opposite parties no. 2 to 9 of this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that trial court had not considered the evidences of complainant side, especially evidence of victim who had stated about alleged misbehavior committed against her wife wearing of dress and molestation. Therefore, impugned order dated 2.4.2016, which has been passed without properly appreciating evidences of complainant side, was erroneous and is liable to be quashed. He pointed out that this point was not considered by revisional court so order of revisional court is also erroneous. 5. Learned AGA has refuted these contentions and pointed out that on one hand applicant himself is absconding from the legal proceedings initiated against him by criminal court, and on other hand he is attempting to take help of court in present matter. He pointed out that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders. 6. This is a fact that in support of complaint, evidences under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were adduced including evidence of the alleged victim, but after going through them and considering other facts, the trial court had found the complaint case doubtful and also held that there is no prima faice case established for summoning the proposed accused persons. In the impugned order, trial court had also sited a case of 'M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. And other Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and other 1998, SC 128' and accordingly passed impugned order for dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. with finding that prima facie case for summoning the proposed accused is not made out. 7. This contention of applicant side is not incorrect that witnesses of complainant side had given evidences during enquiry under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in support of the complaint case, but in spite of those evidences, the trial court had not found them believable at its face value. 8. At the time of passing order of cognizance or summoning, the Magistrate is not expected to accept every evidence adduced before it by its words or on its face value, if it is found unreliable or unacceptable to him. For passing such order, the satisfaction of Magistrate should be the basic consideration. 8 All. Dwarika Prasad Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 23 9. In present case trial court had rightly relied on aforesaid judgment of M/s. Pepsi Foods Ltd. case and had given finding that from available evidences, prima facie case is not made out and complaint version is not believable. Neither revisional court nor this court under inherent jurisdiction are expected to reappreciate the evidences only on the ground that on the basis of evidences adduced before the trial court, there may be probability of reaching to one such conclusion which is different from that of conclusion of reached by trial court on basis of finding of fact, especially when the findings of trial court are not found altogether perverse. This is the case in present matter. Therefore, this court does not find any reason to exercise inherent jurisdiction to interfere in this matter. 10. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. ---------- 24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2016) 8 ILRA 24 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.08.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. THE HON'BLE MUKHTAR AHMAD, J. Criminal Appeal No.- 2776 Of 1983 Ram Gopal ...Appellant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for Appellant: Tej Ram Counsel for Respondent: Dga Held The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; where the evidence is doubtful or unreliable, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If the presence of eyewitnesses is doubtful and their version is inconsistent with medical or surrounding circumstances, their testimony cannot be safely relied upon. Non-examination of material witnesses (e.g., eyewitnesses present at the scene or crucial persons like the scribe of FIR) weakens the prosecution case. Where the FIR itself becomes doubtful (e.g., scribe not supporting prosecution or stating it was dictated by police), the entire prosecution story becomes suspect. Delay in recording statements of witnesses and absence of explanation for such delay creates serious doubt about the prosecution version. Failure to recover alleged weapons of offence and absence of corroborative evidence further weakens the prosecution case. Where conduct of witnesses appears unnatural (e.g., failure to intervene or save victim), their testimony becomes unreliable. If the prosecution story is inconsistent with medical evidence or surrounding facts, it cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, conviction cannot be sustained, and the accused must be acquitted giving benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was set aside and the appeal was allowed. CASE LAW CITED None (Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind K.Tripathi, J.)