Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Munna Lal And 2 Others on 2 December, 2014
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Om Prakash-Vii
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4579 of 2014
Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Munna Lal And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This government appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2014 passed in S.T. No. 27 of 2006, (State vs. Munna Lal and others), by which the Additional Sessions Judge, court no. 12, Aligarh, has acquitted the accused respondents of the charges punishable under section 307 and 302 IPC.
In nutshell the prosecution version is that brother of the informant Nem Singh lived at Braula Chauraha and near his house there was a hotel of Gauri Shanker. On 14.8.2005 at 10.00 p.m. Munna Lal H.C.P. and his son Sanju and their two colleagues Gulsher and Iqbal were sitting at the hotel and were taking liquor and creating nuisance. When the informant requested Munna Lal and others to not create nuisance, they abused him and started mar-peet and when brother and Bhabhi and nephew of the informant came to rescue him, suddenly Munna Lal HCP with his rifle and his son Sanju with his tamancha fired due to which Smt. Usha Devi and Ajay received injuries. They were taken away for hospital where Ajay was declared dead and Smt. Usha Devi was admitted. First Information Report of the incident was lodged under Section 307 and 302 IPC. Investigation was conducted. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, chargesheet under Section 307 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the accused Munna Lal, Gulsher and Iqbal was submitted.
On submission of the chargesheet, the matter was committed to court of sessions and the Sessions Court framed the charges against the accused persons. On their denial, prosecution examined PW-1 Nem Singh, PW-2 Kunwarjeet, PW-3 Smt. Usha Devi, PW-4 Gauri Shanker, PW-5 Dr. K.P. singh, PW-6 Dr. R. Behari and PW-7 Investigation Officer/ C.O. Yashveer Singh. The prosecution has also proved the Police papers.
After closing the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court vide its aforesaid judgment and order acquitted the accused respondents, hence the present appeal.
It is submitted by the learned AGA appearing for the appellant -State that the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence and has decided the case only on the basis of conjunctures and surmises. The impugned judgment and order is illegal and erroneous. The prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has not weighed and assessed the prosecution case in its proper perspective. Though the prosecution case was supported with the eye witnesses, medical evidence and other corroborative evidence, yet the accused respondents have been acquitted.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned AGA appearing for the appellant State and also gone through the entire record.
The trial court while passing the impugned order has observed that PW-2, who is husband of injured Usha Devi has not supported the prosecution case and he has also admitted that when he reached in the hospital taking the injured, he called to the informant. PW-3 Smt. Usha Devi has also not supported the prosecution case and has stated that she could not recognize the assailants due to darkness.
If the observations recorded by the trial court are compared with the facts and evidence of the case and also with the submissions of the learned AGA, it is evident that PW-1 Nem Singh is not an eye witness as he was not present on the spot at the time of incident. PW-2 and PW-3 are said to be present on the spot and PW-3 has received injury in the said incident but during trial they have not supported the prosecution case. Lengthy cross-examination has been done from these witnesses after declaring them hostile but nothing came out from cross-examination, which supports the prosecution case regarding complicity of accused respondents. The view of the trial court that statement of PW-1 Nem Singh for the reasons mentioned above, appears not believable cannot be said to be illegal and perverse. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that if any fact has come in the statement of the hostile witnesses in support of the prosecution case that fact/ evidence may be considered in favour of the prosecution. On perusal of the entire evidence, the view taken by the trial court appears to be in accordance with the evidence available on record. No other view is possible than acquittal.
Thus, it cannot be said that trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence or there is any perversity in the findings so recorded by the trial court. The impugned judgment is well discussed and based on cogent and convincing reasons.
The appeal has no substance and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.
Order Date :- 2.12.2014
safi
