Allahabad High Court
Suneeta Devi vs State Of U.P. & Others on 8 October, 2014
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 36
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 69 of 2013
Applicant :- Suneeta Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
(By Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the records.
This Criminal Misc. Leave Application has been preferred by appellant Suneeta Devi praying for grant of leave for filing appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court no. 14, Bareilly and for summoning of the records of the court below before hearing of the appeal for admission.
The application for grant of leave to appeal is preferred on the ground that the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is against the evidence on record; that the prosecution story is not doubtful and is well supported by the witness; that there is no contradiction in the statements of the witnesses and the oral evidence and that even the minorest of the contradiction has been fully narrated which might have affected the outcome of the case. However, the Trial court by giving unnecessary weightage to minor contradictions has illegally acquitted the accused person though there was sufficient and cogent evidence to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and from a careful perusal of the record, we find that there are material contradictions in the statement of witnesses of the prosecution. The allegation of enmity also exists between the parties which is strong enough to falsely implicate the accused persons. In this backdrop it may also be noted that the day before the incident, an altercation had already taken place between them regarding theft of buffaloes.
From a perusal of the judgement, we find that P.W.-1 Suneeta Devi in her examination-in-chief had substantially stated that
"pkj lky pkj eghus igys dh ckr gS] jkr esa ?kj esa lks jgh Fkh] jkr ds ,d cts dk le; FkkA og jkr esa is'kkc djus dks mBh] mls ?kj ds ikl dqN vkokt lqukbZ nh tks vkil esa ckr dj jgs FksA ekyk nsoh] eqUuh nsoh] ykyrk izlkn] ohjsUnz mQZ ohjk vkil esa ckr dj jgs Fks fd lquhrk ds ifr o cPph lks jgs gSa] ?kj esa vkx yxk nks] lHkh ty dj ej tk;saxsaA rHkh ekyk o eqUuh us mlds NIij esa vkx yxk nh ftlls mlds ifr o cPpksa us Hkkx dj tku cpkbZA mlds 'kksj ij xkWao ds ykyrk izlkn] gksjh yky vkfn vk x, ftUgksaus ?kVuk ns[kh o vkx cq>kbZ rFkk mlds ?kj dk lkjk lkeku o udn :0 20][email protected]& ty x,A**
She in her cross examination with regard to Ex. Ka-1 stated that she has neither submitted a list of the items that was burnt down in the house in the incident nor the burnt items/goods of the house were produced in the court. Thus it is not clear what was actually destroyed in the fire, though she has stated a sum of Rs.20,000/- cash was burnt in the fire. However, her statement is contradictory and was not supported by P.W.-2 Hore Lal and P.W.- 3 Lalta Prasad who is said to have heard that only Rs.2000/- were burnt.
PW-2 Hore Lal in his statement disclosed that there was a dispute between Sukh Lal and Lalta Prasad on 6/7.01.2007 with regard to theft of bullocks and when he was returning from his field after watering the agricultural field, he saw Munni Devi and Mala Devi putting the house of Sukh Lal on fire where Virendra and Lalta were also standing armed with Lathis, they were abusing and saying :-
^^fd dksbZ ?kj ls fudy u ik,A blh oDr xkWao ds vkSj yksx vk x;s] eqfYteku ogkWa ls Hkkx x;sA lq[kyky ds ?kj dk lkjk lkeku ty x;k\ tks mlus ns[kkA [email protected]& :i;s Hkh crk, tk jgs Fks fd ty x;s gSaA mlus ty gq, uksV ugha ns[ksA ftl ?kj esa vkx yxkbZ mlh ?kj esa cPps o lq[kyky lks jgs Fks] tku cpkdj Hkkx x;sA xkWao okyksa us vkx cq>kbZA**
Thus from the aforesaid it is not clear as to whether Rs.20,000/-or Rs.2000/- were burnt during the occurrence. Neither burnt notes/currency were produced before the Court nor any list of items/goods said to have been destroyed in the fire was submitted by Smt. Suneeta Devi. Even PW-2 Hore Lal in his cross examination has stated that he had heard that Rs.2000/- has been burnt in fire but he has not seen those burnt notes/currency.
Further there is another material contradiction with regard to the factum as to whether Smt. Suneeta was awake at the time when the house was being put to fire. In this regard, the statement of Smt. Suneeta is that when she got up for urination, she heard the accused person for putting the house on fire and thereafter it was burnt by them. However, P.W.-2 Hore Lal has given a version which is a material contradiction. He has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, Suneeta Devi was sleeping in her house. The statement of P.W.-3 Lalta Prasad also assumed significance in this context he stated on oath that in the intervening night of 6/7.01.2007 when he was sleeping in his house, he heard shouts between 12 to 1 p.m. Suneeta Devi was shouting that her house has been put to fire. On reaching the spot, he saw Mala Devi, w/o Lalta Prasad, Munni Devi, w/o Virendra, Lalta Prasad and Virendra were standing along with other persons. Virendra and Lalta were armed with danda but he does not remember that what they were saying. He in his examination-in-chief has further stated that there is party-bandi in the village between Mala Devi and Suneeta Devi. He had neither seen Hore Lal at the place of occurrence, nor seen the burnt articles or money which is said to have burnt in the fire.
Admittedly no person living in the neighbourhood has been produced as witness by the prosecution. Suneeta firstly stated that next morning she went to the police station for lodging written report and then said that her husband had gone to the police station which she again changed by saying that she had gone alone to the police station to give the information of the incident and the report was written by Bhoora but it is not on record of the trial case.
Significantly, Suneeta Devi PW-1 also admitted the fact of enmity with the accused persons in her statement. From the record also it appears that there is enmity between Sukh Lal and Suneeta Devi. On the other hand Mala Devi had also filed case No.990 of 2006 under sections 323, 324, 504 IPC, P.S. Hafijganj, Bareilly against Suneeta Devi and her husband.
No independent witness was examined by the prosecution therefore, the court had given credence to this fact that the accused persons were falsely implicated by Smt. Suneeta Devi as the house appears to have caught fire from the spark of fire (Allau) burning in the house. The court found this material contradiction as well as the circumstances as narrated above were sufficient to raise out genuine doubt to the complicity of the accused persons in the occurrence and acquitted them by granting benefit of doubt.
The contradiction in the statement of witnesses by the prosecution are not minor as alleged but are relevant and substantial. The trial court had therefore, rightly granted the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
For all the reasons stated above, the leave to appeal is rejected and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
Dt./-8.10.2014
Ps.
