Pappu vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 3441 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 44 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Pappu
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.

This leave to appeal under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgement dated 04.04.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Varanasi, in Criminal Complaint No. 242 of 2015 - (Sahab Lal & anr. v. State of U.P & anr.), whereby the accused persons were acquitted and appeal was allowed by the appellate court. Opposite party nos. 3 & 4 were convicted by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, in Complaint Case No. 2455 of 2012 (Pappu v. Swaminath & ors.), whereas Swaminath was acquitted by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W 2 - Sunita @ Rinkey has supported the case of prosecution, she was also injured in the incident, but that fact has not been considered by the appellate court and on the basis of statement of D.W 1 - Baldev, D.W 2 - Chanda Devi and D.W 3 - Badri Prasad, it is inferred that Sunita @ Rinkey suffered injuries due to fall.

The appellate court after considering the evidence available on the record found that there is one witness in support of prosecution i.e. Sunita Devi, whereas other witness - complainant - P.W - 1 has not supported the case of prosecution. Mother of Sunita Devi, who was also present at the time of incident and said to have received injuries in the incident, but she has not been produced by the prosecution and in the circumstances it is not safe to convict the accused person.

Considering the above findings of the appellate court, this court is also of the view that merely on the basis of single testimony when other witnesses of the fact were also present and not produced, it was not safe to convict the accuseds and the view taken by the appellate court can be one of the view in the circumstances and as law propounded by Hon'ble Apex Court that if one view possible taken by the Court, then no interference is warranted in that order of acquittal. Consequently, I do not find any reason to interfere in the acquittal order. Hence the leave to appeal is liable to refused.

The application (leave to appeal) is accordingly refused.

Order Date :- 08.06.2016.

Vinod.