Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Satrughan And 2 Others on 19 July, 2021
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 76
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 205 of 2021
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Satrughan And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. on an application under Section 378 Cr.P.C. for granting of leave to appeal.
This appeal has been filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 137 of 2012 (State Vs. Satrughan and another), under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and Section 135 Electricity Act, Police Station Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
Learned A.G.A. in support of the appeal submits that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and it is against the weight of evidence on record. Learned trial court has erroneously passed the impugned order while discarding the prosecution evidence. Learned trial court has passed the judgment against law which is perverse and deserves to be set aside.
In this case, F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and Section 135 Electricity Act at Police Station Gorakhnath against Satrughn, Santosh Kumar Gupta and Babloo Prasad @ Chhatti Lal. On 02.10.2011 'Ma Bagwati Jagran' was held by Babloo Prasad @ Chhatti Lal in front of Kailash Hotel at Dharmshala Bazar. In the night electricity was extracted from pole of L.T. line. On 03.10.2011 at 1.30 am electricity current was flown as a result some people become injured. Case was registered. After investigation charge sheet was submitted. After trial accused persons Satrughan, Santosh Kumar Gupta and Babloo Prasad @ Chhatti Lal were acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 05.03.2020 which is in question in this appeal.
From perusal of record it shows that P.W.3 Ratnesh Kumar Singh who is Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department has stated in his examination-in-chief that Pandal was made by Babloo Prasad @ Chhatti Lal Gupta in front of Kailash Hotel at Dharmshal Bazar for Ma Bhagwati Jagran and he asked him to take electricity connection from Electricity Department but he said that it would be useless because they have generator. Till evening they have not used any electricity so he went back in the night. He was informed by Higher Authority on telephone that electricity current had flown in the pandal. He also reached at the place where officers were also present. Electricity wire was illegally connected in the pandal from L.T. line pole from which electricity was flown and incident took place. He gave information and F.I.R. was lodged in this regard at police station concerned.
During cross examination, this witness has clearly stated that there was no Bhagwati Jagran organized by Babloo Prasad @ Chhatti Lal Gupta in front of Kailash Hotel. There was no any tent where Bhagwati Jagaran was organized. Babloo Prasad @ Chhatti Lal Gupta had no concern with that place. He did not know whether Babloo Prasad @ Chhatti Lal Gupta had extracted electricity to use in his tent or not, he could not tell. Also he did not know the names of members of conveners. There were 3-4 generators engaged in the tent, those were working. He further stated that he did not know Santosh Kumar Gupta.
P.W.4 Sanyogita has stated that while programe of Bhagwati Jagran being run, she was also sitting back in front of stage. All of sudden light was off meanwhile people ran here and there, some of them fell on her as a result she got injured. There were 3-4 generators being used in the pandal. She did not know the conveners and workers.
P.W.5 Saleem, P.W. 6 Smt. Bindu, P.W. 7 Priti Chauhan and P.W. 8 Reena Sonkar have also stated similarly.
P.W.1 Amarjeet has also not supported the prosecution version, he turned hostile. Likewise, P.W.2 Sunil Kumar Singh also turned hostile. They were cross-examined by the learned prosecutor but of no use.
There was no evidence to connect the accused persons with the commission of crime, that was the reason, learned trial court acquitted them of the charges.
Learned A.G.A. has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the learned trial court and thus it cannot be said that the view taken by the court below is a perverse view.
In this way, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances enumerated above, this court is of the view that the trial court has passed the judgment and order for acquittal of the respondents regarding which it cannot be said that the view taken by the court below is not possible and plausible.
The learned trial court has given cogent and convicting reasons for acquitting the accused respondents, therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the appellant.
The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected. Consequently, appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2021
A. Singh
