Allahabad High Court
Irfan vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Rahul Chaturvedi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 878 of 2021
Appellant :- Irfan
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Subhash Chandra Pandey,Satyendra Narayan Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. today in the Court is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A.
The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Rampur in case crime no.294 of 2020 under Section 302 and 201 IPC and Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station-Tanda, District-Rampur.
A perusal of the annexure-1 shows that Head Constable Mohd. Nadeem, Police Station-Tanda, District-Rampur informs that notice was duly served upon the opposite party no.2 after putting his thumb impression over it. Notice is sufficient upon the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to file any rejoinder affidavit and wants to address the Court on merits of the case.
Contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant is the sole named accused person. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the informant's daughter was missing since two in the night on 20.10.2020. After coming to the place of occurrence, the informant has seen the appellant-Irfan coming out of sugar-cane field. After having in-depth probe into the matte, the body of his daughter was found lying in the dead condition having a mark of injury over her neck. The post mortem report reveals that there is ligature mark seen over her neck and as per opinion of the doctor, she died on account of asphyxia as a result of strangulation. All the witnesses, in no uncertain terms, have indicated that there was infatuation between the appellant and the deceased and this was objected by her family members. A frustrated lover has committed this offence by strangulating the girl. Taking into account that while coming outside from the said sugar-cane field, the appellant was seen by the informant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no ocular testimony of the incident. It is true that there is no ocular testimony but facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicates the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence.
Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Rampur dated 22.01.2021.
Hence, the present appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, stands dismissed.
In the event, copy of this may be provided to learned trial Court within 15 days from today, it is expected from the learned trial court to gear up the matter and make necessary endeavour to conclude the trial within one and half year provided the appellant fully cooperates in early conclusion of the trial.
Order Date :- 22.7.2021
Sumit S
