State Of U.P. vs Ranjeet And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 9015 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8548 of 2009
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Ranjeet And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

Re: Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal)

1. Heard Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned AGA appearing for the appellant-State of UP and perused the record.

2. Present government appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 13.08.2009, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Kanpur Dehat in Session Trial No. 139 of 2007 (State of U.P. vs. Ranjeet And Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 248 of 2004, under Section 307/34 of IPC, P.S. Chaubeypur, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the accused, who are four in number, have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 307/34 IPC.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant- Mahesh Chandra lodged a First Information Report stating therein that on 27.10.2004 at about 7.30 in the morning his cousin Atul Kumar alias Raju left the house to answer nature's call and when he reached near the house of Awadhesh, Ranjeet Singh, Chhunnu, Ram Narain, Munnu alias Yatindra Kumar, who were armed with countrymade pistol, Aadhi and lathi came there. Ram Narain exhorted that Atul was the main person in the allotment of Colony, kill him, upon which Ranjeet Singh, with a view to killing Atul, fired upon him from countrymade pistol. Manoj Kahar, Awadesh and Pankaj witnessed the incident and after hearing hue and cry Deepak, Ramgopal, Shivgopal and others came there. On seeing the aforesaid persons Chhunnu and Munnu alias Yatindra Kumar after firing ran away towards North side. They also threatened the persons, who were chasing them. After lodging the First Information Report Investigating Officer was nominated, who completed all the formalities and submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons and thereafter the case was committed for trial.

4. In support of prosecution case, PW-1- Mahesh Chandra, PW-2-Atul Kumar Shukla, PW-3 Pankaj, PW-4-Constable Lala Ram, PW-5 Dr. A.K. Gupta, PW.6-Dr. N.C. Yadav, PW-7-Sub Inspector-Jai Pal Singh, PW-8-Dr. A.K. Nigam and PW-9-Sub Inspector Rajendra Singh were produced and examined before the Court below.

5. The judgement of acquittal has been passed on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and as such the accused respondents are entitled for acquittal.

6. Challenging the impugned judgment, Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned AGA submits that there was cogent evidence to convict the accused persons herein. She submits that the incident was witnessed by Manoj Kahar, Awadhesh and Pankaj, who have clearly supported the prosecution case but the court below has perversely discarded the same and the story that a fight had taken place one day before the incident was created in defence, which was being wrongly believed by the Trial Court. She submits that the medical report clearly establishes that the injured witness P.W.2, Atul was fired upon by the accused persons. Submission, therefore, is that the judgment is perverse in nature and requires deeper scrutiny and liable to be reversed.

7. We have considered the submissions and have perused the record.

8. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take note of law on the appeal against acquittal.

9. In the case of Bannareddy and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2018) 5 SCC 790, in paragraph 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the power and jurisdiction of the High Court while interfering in an appeal against acquittal and in paragraph 26 it has been held that "the High Court should not have reappreciated the evidence in its entirety, especially when there existed no grave infirmity in the findings of the trial Court. There exists no justification behind setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, especially when the prosecution case suffers from several contradictions and infirmities"

10. In Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka, 2021 (6) SCC 213, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to explain the limitations of exercise of power of scrutiny by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court.

11. In a recent judgement of this Court in Virendra Singh vs. State of UP and others, 2022 (3) ADJ 354 DB, the law on the issue involved has been considered.

12. Similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Prasad vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471.

13. On perusal of record we find that the judgment of acquittal has been passed on the ground that the alleged incident had taken place on 27.01.2004 at about 7.30 in the morning whereas one meeting had taken place on 26.10.2004 regarding Indira Awas Yojana, which was called by the mother of the accused-Rajeshwari (who was the then Gram Pradhan). In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. it was specifically stated by the accused-Ram Narain (who himself was Up Gram Pradhan) that in the meeting the informant, injured and other persons, who belongs to upper caste and were not eligible for Indira Awas Yojana created hindrance and had abused the male and female present there and beaten them also. This matter was reported to the police station on 26.10.2004 itself by his mother but as there was a different political party in power, therefore, the same was not registered and on the next day, the prosecution side on making plans were roaming in the village and abused the lower caste people and when these people started abusing at the door of Mahendra Kashyap the then Pradhan  then his son Sandeep forbade them to hurl abuses, on which after getting agitated they attacked Sandeep, who went inside the door but they entered the house and beat him with lathi-danda, kicks and fist and knife. This matter was reported and Sandeep was medically examined in which several injuries were found on the body of the Sandeep including one incised wound, which could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Apart from this story, it has also come on record that earlier the seat of Pradhan in the village was reserved for General candidates and thereafter it was reserved for Other Backward Classes candidates and the accused and his mother were elected as Up-Pradhan and Pradhan respectively, therefore, the people of upper caste were having enmity with the accused persons. It was further found that PW-1 in his statement stated that fire was caused from a distance of 10-12 steps which comes to about 15-18 feet and the Investigating Officer had also shown the distance of firing in the site plan as 20 steps which comes to about 30 feet, whereas according to injury report there was blackening and tattooing on the main injury being firearm injury caused on the right shoulder and therefore, the manner in which the incident had taken place was also disbelieved by the court below. The defence version has also come with the stand that when the informant, injured witness and other persons were threatening the lower castes persons in the morning of 27.01.2004, one Gopal Krishana has fired from his countrymade pistol, which hit the Atul and thereafter they took him away from the spot and because of political rivalry this case was not reported by the police. It is also borne out from the record that DW-3-Dr. Udyanarayan Singh, had medically examined the Sandeep on 30.10.2004 and proved the same. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt in the manner in which the injuries could have been caused to the injured person. Merely on the basis of suspecion, howsoever strong it may be, as per law, the judgment of acquittal cannot be revered by the Appellate Court. There is a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused person.

14. In view of the aforesaid, as reflected from perusal of the evidence, we find that the court below has taken a possible view of the matter on appreciation of entire evidence on record, which cannot be substituted by this Court by taking a different view as per the law discussed above.

15. Accordingly, it is not a case worth granting leave to appeal. The application for granting leave to appeal is rejected.

Re: Government Appeal

1. Consequently, since the Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) is rejected by order of this date, the present government appeal is also dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.8.2022

Nitendra