State Of U.P. vs Tuntun Rajbhar And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 8017 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2750 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Tuntun Rajbhar And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

Learned A.G.A. submitted that in this case the learned trial court has convicted the accused persons illegally without appreciating the evidence available on record and committed error in passing the impugned judgment and order. PW-1 & 2 are injured witnesses but their testimony has not been relied upon by the learned trial court. Other witnesses turning hostile have been relied upon. Medical report also supports the prosecution version. There is also enmity between the accused persons and the complainant. Therefore, it is urged to grant leave for appeal.

On perusal of material available on record, it appears that no F.I.R. was lodged at police station but an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the Court on the basis of which an F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act at Police Station Rasra, District Ballia. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. Co-accused Raju Rajbhar was declared juvenile and his case was sent to Juvenile Justice Board for enquiry and accused Tuntun Rajbhar and Dharmendra Rajbhar stood for trial. PW-1/informant Lalu Gond stated that on 24.09.2012 at about 9 o'clock accused persons abused him and assaulted him with fists. On his call PW-2 Ramalal went there to save him who witnesses the incident. During his examination PW-2 has not supported the prosecution version and there are material discrepancies in his statement. Learned trial court has not relied upon the testimony of this witness. There are no other witnesses of fact except formal witnesses. Injury in the nature of abrasion and a complaint of pain was found on his person as per the medical report.

From the record, it transpires that there is enmity between the complainant and the accused persons which is a double edged weapon and can be used to implicate falsely also. There is no any F.I.R. lodged at the police station about the said incident. The testimony of PW-2 who is said to be the eye-witness of the alleged incident is also not cogent but full of discrepancies which are material. Learned trial court has considered all these facts well within the purview of law and it appears that there is no illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment.

Hence, in the opinion of this Court, there is no ground to grant the leave to appeal. Therefore, leave to grant the appeal is, hereby, rejected.

Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

Order Date :- 15.7.2021

Ashok Gupta