Allahabad High Court
Ram Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 9 June, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 10 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Prasad
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary,Sanjay Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and Mr. Sudhir Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application for leave to appeal (u/s 378 Cr.P.C.) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Fast Track Court, Balrampur in Criminal Case No.452/16/13/08, under Sections 354, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Pachpedwa, District Balrampur against the acquittal of the accused/opposite party Nos.2 & 3.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the learned court below has committed error and acquitted the accused/private opposite parties without considering the evidence placed by the applicants during the course of trial. He further submitted that the incident in question was taken place on 26.02.2008 at about 08:00 a.m. and thereafter, applicant along with the victim and others went to the police station, but the F.I.R. was not lodged and they were running to police station for days for lodging of the F.I.R., then ultimately, they moved an application through registered post to the S.P. for lodging of the F.I.R. but no attention was paid. Later on, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved which was treated as a complaint case and during the course of proceeding applicant, victim and Sarda Devi were examined as P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively before the trial court and they categorically established the prosecution story, but the learned trial court committed error and acquitted the private opposite parties. Therefore, leave to appeal is liable to be allowed and the appeal may be admitted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the private opposite parties and he drew attention of the Court on the deposition of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 and submitted that as per the prosecution case, after the incident victim went to the police station with her husband, but her F.I.R. was not lodged and she visited to the police station repeatedly but her F.I.R. was not lodged and ultimately, an application was given to the S.P. In the deposition of P.W.1, he stated that incident was taken place on 26.02.2008 at 08:00 a.m. and after incident, they came back to their home and the applicant and victim went to the police station by bicycle and Sarda Devi and Sundari went to the police station by foot. They reached police station at 10:00 a.m. but there F.I.R. was not lodged. He further submitted that in the said incident, the victim has not received injuries even if she was dragged. He further submitted that there is a major contradiction in the version of the victim and the complainant, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused/private opposite parties, hence, the application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the judgment in which statement of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been discussed in detailed, it is evident that the victim (P.W.2) stated that after the incident victim went to the police station with her husband and the applicant/complaint (P.W.1) stated that the applicant and victim went to the police station by bicycle and Sarda Devi and Sundari went to the police station by foot, as there is major contradiction in the statement of victim and the complainant, therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has rightly acquitted the accused/private opposite parties.
Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is hereby rejected.
Since the application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive and the same stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.6.2022
S. Shivhare
