Allahabad High Court
Chandrabhan Singh vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 18 June, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2178 of 2021
Appellant :- Chandrabhan Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha)
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,J.
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.
This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Trial Court where while convicting the accused for offence under Section 323, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act acquitted them from the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.
An application to seek leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant with a prayer to grant it so as to pursue the appeal to seek conviction of the accused even for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.
Learned counsel submits that despite having an evidence of pouring of kerosene oil on the victim, the learned Trial Court ignored the aforesaid while acquitting the accused non-appellants.
A reference of the statement of PW-2 Sanju has been given. She made a statement about the act of the accused of pouring of the kerosene on the victim to set her on fire and thereby offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was made out.
This Court may accordingly cause interference in the judgment in reference to the acquittal of the accused from the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.
We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant.
The learned Trial Court has convicted accused non-appellant for the offence under Section 323, 498-A I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act while acquitting them from the offence under Section 307 I.P.C.
The appeal is to seek conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Perusal of the judgment and evidence on record does not show any evidence to make out an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Even if the statement of PW-2 is seen, she did not state about any act of the accused to set her on fire.
The fact aforesaid was not even disclosed in the initial report as well as in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In the chief also, she did not state that any of the accused was having match box with him to set her on fire.
It is also a fact that the evidence was not produced by the prosecution to show availability of kerosene at the place of incident or any evidence of it. No recovery of any container for it was made. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it may be for the reason that when the F.I.R. was not registered, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed. It is in pursuance to the order of the learned Trial Court that F.I.R. was registered.
The fact however remains that no evidence could be produced by the prosecution to prove its case for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and that too proving it beyond doubt.
In absence of any evidence, if the accused have been acquitted for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., we do not find any illegality in the judgment so as to grant leave to maintain this appeal.
Accordingly, application to seek leave to appeal as well as the appeal of the appellant are dismissed.
Any finding or observation made in this judgment would not be taken to be adverse in any manner if the appellant intends to contest the appeal preferred by the accused.
Order Date :- 18.6.2021
Nirmal Sinha
