HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A F R Court No. - 45 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 915 of 2015 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Sevaram And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.
(Order on application for granting leave to appeal) (delivered by Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar, J)
1. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U. P. and perused the lower Court's record.
2. This application for granting leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2014 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No.7 of 2008 whereby accused-respondents Sevaram, Kappu @ Kapoor Singh and Chandrabhan have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC in Case Crime No.615 of 2007, P. S. Poora Kala, District-Lalitpur.
3. From perusal of record and impugned judgment it reveals that the FIR of this case has been lodged by complainant Rajjo, PW 1 on 11.10.2007 at 22.15 pm in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 11.10.2007 at 8 pm. The complainant Rajjo had lodged FIR to the effect that his son Dhyan Yadav while coming after attending invitation from the house of Chhandi Yadav was assaulted by accused Seva Lodhi, Kapoor Singh and Chadrabhan in front of the berha of Salig Ram Lodhi in village Mahua Bayo near a government handpump by axe and ballam whereby the deceased Dhyan sustained injuries. The prosecution had examined PW 1 Rajjo, PW 2 Dr. Rajendra Prasad, PW 3 Kehar Singh, PW 4 Sultan, PW 5 Rameshwar, PW 6 Constable Bharat Singh and PW 7 S. O. Suresh Singh. PW 1 has corroborated the FIR story and had further stated that the incident was seen by Kehar and Rameshwar.
4. PW 3 Kehar Singh, the eye witness of the incident has categorically stated that his uncle Dhyan was not murdered in his presence by accused Sevaram, Kapoor Singh and Chandrabhan. He further stated that he had come to know about the murder on the next day when the police had come to his house. He had not supported the prosecution version. PW 4 Sultan, who is real brother of deceased Dhyan, is the witness of fact of recovery. He had stated that at the instance of Kapoor Singh an axe was recovered from the bushes near Check Dam and recovery of lathi was made at the instance of accused Chandrabhan from the bushes. Both the accused persons had stated that these were the weapons of assault. PW 5 Rameshwar is a witness of fact. He had denied the factum of attending the invitation by the deceased on the date of incident, at the house of Chhandi Yadav. He has not seen accused persons committing murder of deceased Dhyan by axe and lathi on 11.10.2007 at 8 pm in front of the berha of Salig Ram Lodhi in village Mahua Bayo near a government handpump.
5. Thus, remains the testimony of PW 4, who is a witness of fact and recovery was made on pointing out of accused-respondents Kapoor Singh and Chandrabhan with respect to weapon of assault. PW 3 the witness of fact had not supported the prosecution version. PW 5 had also not supported the factum of attending the invitation by deceased Dhyan at the place of Chhandi Yuadav and he had also denied about the factum of murder allegedly committed by the accused-respondents by axe and lathi.
6. Thus, remains the testimony of formal witness PW 2 Dr. Rajendra Prasad, who had conducted post mortem examination on the body of decease Dhyan. No ante mortem injury was found. Injury no.(i) to (v) and (vii) are incised wounds and injury no.(vi) is lacerated wound and injuries no.(viii) & (ix) are contusions. PW 2 is a formal witness. His testimony is confined to the post mortem examination report. PW 6 Constable Bharat Singh has proved the execution of Chik FIR and its G. D. entry as Ext ka 6 and Ext ka 7 respectively. PW 7 S. O. Suresh Singh is the I. O. and had executed the inquest report. He had collected sample of blood stained soil as well as simple soil and recorded statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr. P. C. He had also recovered the weapon of assault at the pointing of accused-respondents Kapoor Singh and Chandrabhan and proceed with the investigation. This witness has proved the execution of Panchnama as Ext ka 2 and other documents as Ext ka 8 to Ext ka 16 such as recovery memo, weapon of assault, site plan and charge sheet.
7. The learned Court below had rightly appreciated the evidences available on record and there is no misreading of evidence. The learned Court below has rightly recorded the findings of acquittal on merits.
8. The view taken by the learned Court below is a possible view. No interference is required by this Court in the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below. The application for granting leave to appeal is bereft of merit. Therefore, the prayer for granting leave to appeal is rejected.
9. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Order Date :-28.5.2015 himwan Court No. - 45 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 915 of 2015 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Sevaram And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.
(Order on Memo of appeal) (delivered by Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar, J) Heard learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P. and perused the lower Court's record.
Since, the application for granting leave to appeal had been dismissed today, consequently this appeal is also dismissed.
Let the lower Court's record be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :-28.5.2015 himwan