State Of U.P. vs Manish Pratap Singh And 5 Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 7697 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 36
 

 
Case:- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No.431 of 2014
 
Appellant:- State Of U.P.
 
Respondents:- Manish Pratap Singh and  others
 
Counsel for Appellant:- Government Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

( By Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the appellant-State of U.P. on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 342994 of 2014 and perused the affidavit filed in support of this application.

It is averred in the affidavit that vide Government Order dated 14.7.2014 the proposal for filing the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.5.2014 was received in the office of Government Advocate by special messenger on 6.8.2014 and the limitation for filing the appeal was up to 1.9.2014; that the application for leave to appeal along with memo of government appeal was prepared in the month of August, 2014 but due to time taken in getting the certified typed copy of the judgment in his office which was ultimately received on 14.9.2014 and by that time the limitation for filing the present government appeal i.e. 1.9.2014 had already been expired; that in such an eventuality the government appeal could not have been filed before the Court, hence, in these circumstances, delay may be condoned.

Cause shown for delay in filing the government appeal is sufficient. Delay is condoned and the delay condonation application is allowed.

Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned AGA also on merit of the government appeal and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

This Criminal Misc. Application Defective (Leave to Appeal) No. 431 of 2014 along with Government Appeal under Sections 378 and 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.5.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut in S.T. No. 739 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Manish Pratap Singh and others along with connected S.T. No. 909 of 2013, State of U.P. versus Awadhesh) acquitting the accused- respondents of the charges framed against them under Sections 147,148,307/149, 332,353,504 & 506 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act.

Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 7.12.2013 after making entry in report no. 32 at 20.30 hours at Police Station Bhawanpur, Meerut Constables Om Prakash Bhati, Trilok Chand Sharma and Incharge Police Chowki Hasanpur Sri Anand Pal Singh Raghav proceeded for patrolling duty in order to maintain law and order in mohallas Jaibheem Nagar, Shiv Shakti Vihar, Bhopal Vihar and Sanjay Vihar of police chowki Hasanpur. When the aforesaid police team reached near Bajrang Hostel, accused persons Manish Pratap Singh, Kapil Verma, Awadhesh Tomar, Pankaj Sharma, Montu and Daini armed with Lathi, Danda & weapons were standing there and abusing each other. When Inspector Sri Anand Pal Singh Rao tried to understand them, all of a sudden accused Awadhesh & Montu fired upon the police personnel with intention to kill them, as a result of which Chowki Incharge Sri Anand Pal Singh Raghav received fire-arm injury at the left of his neck and stomach. The matter was reported to the Higher authorities through the Control room regarding the incident by the police personnel. All the accused persons fled away from the spot abusing and threatening to kill them. Injured S.I. Sri Anand Pal Singh was brought to Ajay Hospital, Garhroad for his treatment with the help of local persons from where he was referred to Anand Hospital, Garhroad, Meerut. After medical examination of injured S.I. Sri Anand Pal Singh Raghav, the report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Bhawanpur, District Meerut, which was registered as case crime nos. 454 and 455 of 2012 under Sections 147,148,149,307/149, 332, 353,506 & 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. After completing the investigation, the I.O. submitted chargesheet against all the the accused persons.

Charges for the offence punishable under Sections 147,148,307/149, 332, 353,506 & 506 IPC were framed against accused persons Manish Pratap Singh, Kapil Verma, Awadhesh Tomar, Pankaj Sharma, Montu and Daini and a separate charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed against accused Awadhesh Tomar only by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Meerut. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case the prosecution examined eleven witnesses namely, S.I. Sri Anand Pal Singh (PW-1), Constable Om Prakash Bhati (PW-2), Constable Clerk, Santosh Kumar (PW-3), Constable Trilok Chand Sharma (PW-4), Dr. Navneet Agarwal (PW-5), S.I. Isham Singh (PW-6), Constable Santosh Kumar (PW-7), H.C.P. Subhash Chand (PW-8), S.I. Daleep Singh (PW-9), S.I. Sudarshan Lal (PW-10) and S.I. Rajendra Kumar (PW-11) and filed certain documentary evidence. The accused persons in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations levelled against them stating that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused persons in their defence produced two defence witnesses namely, Constable Satvir Singh (DW-1) & Suresh Chand Sharma (DW-2) and filed certain documentary evidence.

After considering the evidence, material on record as well as hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents vide judgment and order dated 30.5.2014 holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.

The State of U.P.-appellant has preferred this Government Appeal assailing the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the prosecution has fully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but the trial Court has committed gross error in disbelieving the testimony of prosecution witnesses; that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court acquitting the accused-respondents is wholly illegal, perverse, against the weight of evidence on record and in any view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in the eye of law as such is liable to be set aside.

From perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court it appears that the I.O. had not visited the hospital where the injured was admitted first. He had also not taken into his possession the blood stained clothes of the injured as well as the blood stained clothes of other police constables who accompanied him. If S.I. injured Sri Anand Pal Singh Raghav was on government duty along with the revolver why the I.O. had not inquired about the revolver and the blood stained uniform of the injured was not sent for forensic test. No independent witnesses present at the spot were examined by the prosecution. Sri Pradeep Singh Vist, the then S.O. Hasanpur, who was an important witness, had not been examined by the prosecution while his name had been disclosed in getting the injured admitted in the hospital. The owner of Bajrang Hostel was not produced as a witness by the prosecution. The statement of Viswas Bhati was not recorded by the I.O.

In this case, the incident is said to have taken place in front of Bajrang Hostel while injured S. I. Sri Anand Pal Singh was on duty at police chowki Hasanpur within the police station Bhavanpur. It has come in evidence that injured was residing on rent in a room of the aforesaid hostel. The incident has taken place in the night. Considering the facts, evidence and the circumstances of the case it appears that the injured had not received injuries by fire in front of Bajrang hostel. He had either received injuries from the fire in the room or any other place. At that time, injured S.I. Sri Anand Pal Singh was neither on duty nor he was in uniform. Dr. Navneet Agarwal (PW-5) in his evidence has stated that one sealed bundle was opened in his presence in which a .32 bore bullet and one Parchi of Anand Hospital were found. He stated that a 12 bore bullet was found in the body of injured whereas a country made pistol of 315 bore was recovered from the possession of accused Awadhesh Tomar from which it is established that the injured had not received any injury from the pistol which was recovered from accused Awadhesh Tomar. The I.O. S.I. Isham Singh (PW-6) in his evidence has stated that he had taken the bullet in his possession and sealed it in a tin box. He further stated that he had neither seen the bullet by opening the tin box nor the same was sent for forensic test. H.C.P. Subhash Chandra (PW-8) in his evidence has stated that firing was not made by any of the accused persons and accused Awadhesh Tomar, Manish Pratap Singh and Kapil were arrested simultaneously by the police. On these considerations, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the alleged 315 bore of pistol was not recovered from the possession of accused Awadhesh Tomar. There are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses and no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution.

For ready reference, the relevant portion of the finding of the trial Court is quoted below.

" 1-foospd vt; vLirky tgkW pqVSfgy loZizFke HkrhZ gqvk] ogka D;ksa ugha x;k\

2- foospd us pqVSy ;k mlds lkFk x, flikfg;ksa dh [kwu yxh onhZ dCts esa D;ksa ugha yh\ 3- ;fn pqVSy vkuUn iky flag jk?ko ljdkjh M;wVh ij Fkk vkSj fjokYoj ds lkFk jokuxh gqbZ FkhA ,slhfLFkfr esa ljdkjh fjokYoj ds ckjs esa tkudkjh D;ksa ugha fd;k vkSj QksjsfUld tkap ds fy, [kwu vkywnk onhZ vkfn D;ksa ugha Hksts\ 4- ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkr vU; lk{khx.k ds c;ku D;ksa ugha fy, \ 5- rRdkyhu Fkkuk/;{k gluiqj iznhi flag fo"V tks fd vR;Ur egRoiw.kZ lk{kh Fks] mudks lk{kh D;ksa ugha cuk;k] tc fd mudk uke pqVSy dks vkuUn vLirky esa HkrhZ djus esa fn[kk;k x;k gSA 6- ctjax gkWLVy ds ekfyd tks fd iwoZ esa gq, le>kSrs esa Hkh Fkk] mudk lk{; D;ksa ugha fy;k x;kA 7- fo'okl HkkVh tks fd >xM+s dh tM+ crk;k x;k gS] mldk c;ku D;ksa ugha fy;kA fo'okl HkkVh ekeys dk lcls egRoiw.kZ lk{kh gks ldrk FkkA ijUrq foospd }kjk mldk lk{; u ysuk lgh rF;ksa dks lkeus ykus ls cpkus dk iz;kl gSA vfHk;kstu dh vksjls bu fdlh Hkh iz'u dk dksbZ lUrks"ktud tokc ugha gSA

izLrqr ekeys dk ?kVuk LFky ctjax gkWLVy ds lkeus crk;k x;k gS] tc fd pqVSy dh M;wVh Fkkuk Hkkouiqj gluiqj dh pkSdh ij crk;h x;h gSA lk{; esa ;g Hkh vk;k gS fd ctjax gkWLVy tgka ?kVuk gksuk crk;k x;k gS] mlh gkWLVy ds ,d dejs esa ,l vkbZ vkuUn iky flag fdjk, ij jgrs FksA jkf= dh ?kVuk gSA ekeys ds leLr rF;] lk{; ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd pqVSy vkuUn iky flag dks ctjax gkWLVy ds lkeus xksyh ugha yxh gSA xksyh ;k rks gkWLVy ds dejs esa yxh gS ;k dgha vU;= yxh gSA ml le; ,l vkbZ vkuUn iky flag u rks ljdkjh M;wVh ij Fks] u gh onhZ esa FksA ?kVuk dk dkj.k] ?kVuk LFky rFkk ?kVuk esa 'kkfey vfHk;qDrx.k ds uke iwjh rjg lafnX/k gSA pqVSy okLrfod rF;ksa dks lkeus ykuk ugha pkgrk gSA u gh foospd us ?kVuk dh okLrfodrk esa tkus dk iz;kl fd;k gSA ;g lEHko gS fd ftu O;fDr;ksa ds uke pqVSy us fy, gSa] muesa ls dqN O;fDr 'kkfey gks ldrs gSaA ijUrq tc rd muds fo:) lansg ls ijs lk{; ugh izLrqr fdk tk,] ?kVuk LFky ij ?kVuk esa 'kkfey O;fDr;ksa dh mifLFkfr dks lk{; ls lkfcr u fd;k tk,A ,slh fLFkfr esa dsoy lEHkkouk ds vk/kkj ij tc fd Lo;a pqVSy lk{kh okLrfod rF;ksa dks fNik jgk gSA vkijkf/kd ekeyksa esa lUnsg ls ijs fu"d"kZ ij ugha igqWpk tk ldrk gSA

ekuuh; bykgkckn mPp U;k;ky; us fxj/ku ,oa vU; cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 2012¼2½ ts0lh0vkj0lh0 1443 ds ekeys esa ;g fof/kd fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k gS fd& tgkWa ij lwpuk nsus okys dh ?kVuk LFky ij mifLFkr lansgiw.kZ gks] ?kVuk dkfjr gksus ds dze esa fojks/kkHkkl gks] izR;{kn'khZ rFkk pqVSfgy lkf{k;ksa ds dFkuksa esa fojks/kkHkkl gks] lk{; ls nf'kZr gksrk gks fd vfHk;kstu }kjk ?kVuk ds egRoiw.kZ rF;ksa dks fNik;k x;k gSA vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ls nf'kZr gksrk gS fd vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vkjksiksa dks fl) djus esa vlQy jgk gksA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vfHk;qDrx.k lansg ls ykHk fn;k tk ldrk gSA

vr% i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr lk{;ksa] rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vfHk;kstu i{k vfHk;qDrx.k euh"k izrki flg] dfiy oekZ] vo/ks'k rksej] iadt 'kekZ] eks.Vw mQZ 'kh'kiky o MSuh ds fo:) yxk, x, vkjksi vUrxZr /kkjk&147] 148] 149] 307] 332] 353] 504] 506 Hkk0na0la0 dks lansg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa iw.kZr;k vlQy jgk gSA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k lansg dk ykHk nsrs gq, nks"keqDr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA

vfHk;qDr vo/ks'k ds fo:) eq0v0la0&[email protected] vUrxZr /kkjk&25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA vr% lEcfU/kr l= okn la0&[email protected] /kkjk&25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ls lEcfU?kr ekeys dk fuLrkj.k Hkh iz'uxr ekeys ds lkFk fd;k tk jgk gSA

iz'uxr ekeys esa vfHk;qDr vo/ks'k rksej ds ikl ls l= okn la0&[email protected] ljdkj cuke euh"k izrki flg vUrxZr /kkjk& 147] 148] 149] 307] 332] 353] 504] 506 Hkk0na0la0 ds vUrxZr iz;qDr fd, x, vlygk dh cjkenxh fn[kkrs gq, fxjQ~Rkkj fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;qDr vo/ks'k rksej ds ikl ls ,d vnn reapk] ,d [kksdk dkjrwl o ,d dkjrwl 315 cksj cjken fd;k x;k gSA

i=koyh ij lk{kh ih0MCyw0 5 MkW0 uouhr vxzoky ftUgksaus pqVSy dk bykt fd;k Fkk] vius eq[; c;ku esa ist 2 ij dFku fd;k gS fd ^^ U;k;ky; ds lkeus ,d lhy] losZ eksgj iqfyUnk [kksyk x;kA ftlds vUnj ls ,d cqysV o vkuUn vLirky dh ,d iphZ fudyhA cqysV 32 cksj dh gSA^^ lk{kh ih0MCyw0 5 us vius c;ku ftjg ist 6 ij dFku fd;k gS fd ^^eq>s cUnwd 12 cksj] reapk 315 cksj] fiLVy 32 cksj ds gfFk;kjksa o muls pyus okyh xksyh dh igpku gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd cjken xksyh 32 cksj ds reaps ls ugha py ldrh gSA^^ bl izdkj vfHk;kstu dk dsl >wB lkfcr gksrk gS] D;ksfd ?kk;y ds 'kjhj ls 32 cksj dh cqysV fudyh gS] tc fd vfHk;qDr vo/ks'k rksej ds ikl ls 315 cksj dk reapk cjken gqvk gSA ftlls lkfcr gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr ds ikl ls cjken vlygk lsl ?kk;y dks pksV ugha yxh gSA

foospd vkijkf/kd ekeys esa egRoiw.kZ lk{kh gksrk gS foospd ,l0vkbZ0 bZ'ke flag dks ih0MCyw0 6 ds :i esa ijhf{kr djk;k x;k gSA foospd ih0MCyw0 6 us vius c;ku ftjg ist ij dFku fd;k gS fd ^^ esjs }kjk vkuUn vLirky esa pqVSy ds 'kjhj ls MkWDVj }kjk fudkyh x;h xksyh dCts esa ysdj nkf[ky eqdnek dh x;h o losZ eksgj&fMCck dkseSus [kksydj ugh ns[kk vkSj xksyh Hkh esjs }kjk tkWp gsrq ugha Hksth x;hA^^ ekeys ds foospd us cjken xksyh ds losZ eksgj fMCcs dks [kksydj ns[kus rd dh t:jr eglwl ugh dh gS vkSj u gh xksyh tkWp gsrq Hksth x;h gSA blls foospd dh ea'kk ,oa xEHkhjrk ij iz'ufpUg [kM+k gksrk gSA

lk{kh ,p0lh0ih0 lqHkk"k pUnz tks vfHk;qDr vo/ks'k rksej dh fxjQ~rkjh ds le; ekSds ij Fkkus ih0MCyw0 8 ds :i esa dFku fd;k gS fd ^^ eqyfteku }kjk fdlh us dksbZ xksyh ugh pyk;hA rhuksa eqyfteku vo/ks'k rksej] euh"k izrki flag o dfiy ,d lkFk iqfyl okyksa us idM+ fy,A fdl iqfyl okys us fdl eqfYte dks idM+k Fkk] eSaus ugha crk ldrkA^^ xokgku us lkeus reaps dks ns[kdj dgk fd ml ij tax yxk gSA iqfyUns ij fdlh vU; ds gLrk{kj ugha gSaA dsoy lhy ds gLrk{kj gSaA^^

In so far as the finding of acquittal recorded under Section 25 of the Arms Act in favour of accused-appellant Awadhesh Tomar is concerned, the trial Court has observed thus:-

"lk{kh ,l0vkbZ0 lqn'kZu yky tks fd /kkjk 25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds foospd gSa] us ih0MCyw0 10 ds :i esa ist 3 o 4 ij dFku fd;k gS fd ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd eSaus losZ lhy eqgj iqfyUnk reapk [kksydj ugha ns[kk FkkA eSaus ugha crk ldrk fd blds vUnj D;k FkkA VVksyus ls reapk yx jgk gSA blds vykok eq>s ,d reapk gkFk ls VVksyus ls o ,d ftUnk dkjrwl o ,d [kksdk dkjrwl eglwl gks jgk FkkA ;gkWa ij Hkh foospd dh xEHkhjrk blls nf'kZr gksrh gS fd og /kkjk&25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds ekeys dh foospuk dj jgk gS] ijUrq lhy eksgj iqfyUnk ftlesa reapk j[kk gqvk gS] mldks [kksydj ns[kus rd dh t:jr eglwl ugh djrk gSA gkFk ls VVksydj reaps dk vuqeku yxk jgk gSA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd iz'uxr ekeys esa VVksydj reaps dk vuqeku yxk jgk gSA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd iz'uxr ekeys esa lPpkbZ dh rg rd u tkdj dsoy yhikiksrh djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gSA reapk cjkenxh ds fdlh Lora= lk{kh vkfn dks izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA

vr% mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij tc fd ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd vfHk;qDr vo/ks'k rksej ds ikl ls dfFkr vlygk 315 cksj reaps dh cjkenxh ugha gqbZ gS] dksbZ Lora= lk{kh izLrqr ugh fd;k x;k gSA lk{khx.k ds c;kuksa esa egRoiw.kZ fojks/kkHkkl gSA vfHk;sktu i{k vfHk;qDr vo/ks'k rksej ds fo:) /kkjk&25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vkjksi dks lkfcr djus esa Hkh vlQy jgk gSA vr% vfHk;qDr vo/ks'k rksej /kkjk&25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds vkjksi ls lansg dk ykHk nsrs gq, nks"keqDr gksus ;ksX; gSA"

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding of acquittal in favour of the accused-respondents holding that there are material contradictions in ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses with the medical evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court on these considerations has rightly acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Sections 147, 148,149,307,332,353,504 & 506 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act framed against them.

For the reasons stated above, the judgment impugned is confirmed and we do not find this appeal, a case for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the prayer for leave to appeal is rejected. As a consequence, the Government Appeal is also dismissed.

Dated 27.10.2014

CPP/-