HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 45 AFR Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 259 of 2007 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Rameshwar And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar, J.)
1. Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for State of U. P. and perused the record.
2. The application for granting leave to government appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No.806 of 2000 and connected Sessions Trial No.807 of 2000 whereby accused-respondents Rameshwar, Sunil and Harbir have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and accused Rameshwar and Sunil have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act in Case crime No.156 of 1999, 157 of 1999 and 158 of 1999, P.S. Ahmedgarh, District-Bulandshahr.
3. From perusal of the record and impugned judgment, it reveals that FIR of this case has been lodged by Purushottam Singh. As per FIR on 30.8.1999 after uploading milk from the dairy at Bulandshahr, complainant Purushottam Singh was coming on his Tata 407 No.U.P. 13-2775 to his village Daulatpur. When he reached near tube well of one Kuber singh at about 4 pm, accused Harbir, Sunil and Rameshwar were present there. On instigation, accused Harbir and Sunil fired shot upon the complainant, who escaped unhurt. Accused Rameshwar and Sunil were arrested on the spot along with country made pistol and cartridges. FIR of this case was lodged with the police on 30.8.1999 at 19.00 hours.
4. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against accused Rameshwar and Sunil for the offence u/s 307 IPC and respectively against each accused u/s 25 of Arms Act. The investigation against accused Harbir culminated into submission of police report in the shape of final report, who was summoned subsequently by the Court exercising jurisdiction u/s 319 Cr.P.C.
5. Harbir has examined Ram Niwas and Arvind Kumar Singh, ASI as DW 1 and DW 2 and Suraj Singh has been examined as CW 1. After apprciating the evidence, the learned trial Court has recorded findings that prosecution has failed to establish the presence of accused Harbir at the time, date and place of occurrence. Since, he was deputed on the security duty of house of Ram Niwas at village Ekauna, District-Budaun.
6. The trial Court further proceeded to analyze the testimony of PW 1 Purushottam Singh and PW 2 Vishnu. Purushottam is the complainant and PW 2 is an eye witness of the incident. The trial Court has pointed out on the basis of evidence that Vishnu, Jagbir and Prempal have reached the spot after hearing the sound of fire whereas PW 1 has stated that Jagbir was accompanying him. At the same time it has been stated by PW 1 that Jagbir reached the spot after hearing the fire sound. The discrepancy is with regard to signing of the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by the I.O. The presence of accused Harbir has already been held by the learned trial Court to be doubtful. There is a discrepancy about the recovery of weapon of assault and the cartridges. Who had taken the possession of assault weapons and cartridges from whom, there is ambiguity, which has been observed by the impugned judgment. At one place the recovery was allegedly made on the spot whereas at other place it is said that recovery was not made on the spot. The accused persons were taken to the village where the incident was report to the village Pradhan, who has not even been named in the FIR by the complainant. At one place it has been admitted by PW 1 that the witnesses reached within 4-5 minutes after the fire. On the basis of the statement, the Court has made the observation that the witnesses have not seen the incident. At one place PW 1 has stated that accused persons were searched in the village and explained that from spot to the village, during this period the weapon of assault remained with the accused persons. The witness has admitted that the case property, weapon of assault cannot be seen before him. The Court has observed that there is lack of coherence in the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 with respect to the incident and recovery. The rest of the witnesses are formal witnesses. The learned trial Court has recorded findings of acquittal against the accused persons on the basis of evidence before it. The Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has not committed any mistake in the appreciation of the evidence. The view taken by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused persons is a possible view.
7. The findings of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court does not require any interference by this Court. Therefore, the prayer for granting leave to appeal is refused.
8. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.4.2015 himwan Court No. - 45 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 259 of 2007 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Rameshwar And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.
Heard the learned AGA for the State of U. P. and perused the record.
The application for granting leave to appeal has been rejected today by the Court. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.
Let the lower Court's record be transmitted to the learned Court below forthwith.
Order Date :- 17.4.2015 himwan