Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Jagannath Kushwaha And 4 Others on 17 December, 2013
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 49
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 556 of 2013
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Jagannath Kushwaha And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the trial Court judgment and record.
This present Govt Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2013 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District Jhansi in Special Sessions Trial No.82 of 2008 (State of U.P. Vs. Jagannath and others) by which the accused respondents have been acquitted by the trial Court for the offence under Sections 147,323/34,504, 506 I.P.C., and Section 3(1)10 SC/ST Act (Prevention of Cruelty Act, Police Station Sipiri Bazar, District Jhansi.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Ramkumari wife of Lalaram, (Chamar), resident of House no.273/1, Maseehganj, Maila Ki Toriya, Sipri Bazar, Police Station Sipri Bazar, District Jhansi submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi stating therein that on 21.9.2007 at about 8 p.m., she was inside her house and further her minor daughter, namely, Km. Radha aged about 10 years was beaten by one Jaggannath Kushwaha son of Lallu. The said incident was seen by the family members of Jaggannath Kushwaha but nobody tried to save her daughter. She further stated that her daughter complained about the said incident to the father of Rahul, namely Jagannath Kushwaha, Rinku, Sonu, Jani all sons of Jagannath Kushwaha, who were standing there. Thereafter, the complainant told the said persons that they were seeing the incident but nobody tried to save her daughter. Upon this, all the abovenamed accused persons, with a common intention to commit marpeet uttered that "Tu Chamariya Wali Ham Sawarno Ke Bagal me Rahkar Roj Apshagun Karti Hai Aur Yahan Se Makan Chhorkar Dusri Jagah Chali Ja Nahi to Tujhe Bhi Kisi Din Maar Denge". On this, the complainant told the said persons not to use the filthy languages, then abovenamed accused persons with a common intention to beaten her by kicks and fists, due to which, she received injuries. She further stated that due to the said maarpeet, her Mangalsutra worth Rs.4,000/- weighted 1/2 Tola also fell down which could not be traced out and she suffered loss of money. The above accused persons also threatened her to leave the said locality. On the hue and cry, her husband Lalaram, witness Shiv Kumar and Munnalal came at the place of incident and they saw the incident. In this regard, an FIR has been registered, in which after completion of investigation, the accused persons had been charge sheeted to fact their trial.
Learned AGA has submitted that the learned trial Court has misread the evidence on record and acquitted the accused respondents. He further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, hence, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court should be set aside.
From perusal of the record it appears that the FIR was lodged at the instance of Minister after five days of the incident. Moreover, when the injured PW1 Raj Kumari was examined by the trial Court, her evidence was not found to be a reliable one. She stated that she received injuries on her face, abdomen and back, but the medical report does not show any such injuries on her person.The statement of PW1 Raj Kumari is in contradiction to the statement of PW2 Lala Ram, her husband. Moreover, the place of occurrence which was stated by PW2 was also found to be doubtful. It further transpires from the record that there was some civil dispute between the husband of PW1 with the father of accused/opp. party ,which was pending between the parties and on account of which, false FIR was lodged against the accused respondents.
I find on the appraisal of evidence as discussed by the trial Court that the judgment of acquittal was rightly passed. I find no merit in this appeal and as such while dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I refused to grant special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. This appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 17.12.2013
NS
