Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Raj Narayan Tiwari on 11 April, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 146 of 2014
Applicant :- State of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Raj Narayan Tiwari
Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Brijendra Singh learned counsel for the applicant State and perused record.
Present application has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.4.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, district Ambedkar Nagar, acquitting the accused respondent under Section 452, 323, 506 IPC and 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act in Special Sessions Trial No.33 of 2007 (State. Vs. Raj Narayan Tiwari).
As per prosecution case, on 29.10.1992 the complainant Bhavani Pher son of Sripal lodged a report that he was belonging to scheduled caste and he used sell the Beran (seedlings) of chili, tomato, cauliflower etc. On 15.10.1992, in absence of complainant, the accused respondent entered into his house and had beaten his wife. He has further stated in the FIR that the seedlings were taken away by him forcefully earlier for which a report was lodged but no action was taken. The FIR further stated that due to the aforesaid enmity, on 28.10.1992, at about 8.00 O' Clock in the night Raj Narayan Tiwari and Malik Tiwari had entered his house and crime was committed by them. It is further stated that next day in the morning again they came to his house and threatened to kill the complainant. On the basis of the Tahreer, the report was lodged on 29.10.1992 at 12.15 p.m. under Section 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act in case crime No.496 of 1992, PS Kotwali Akbarpur district Ambedkar Nagar.
The injured was examined by Dr. Ramashanker Barnwal. The case was investigated. Chargesheet was filed and thereafter the charges were framed against the accused respondent on 14.1.2002 under Section 452, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act. The accused respondent pleaded not guilty and requested for trial.
The prosecution had produced PW-1 Dilip Kumar, PW-2 Smt. Manka Devi, PW-3 Dr. Ramashanker Barnwal, PW-4 Constable Ram Nihor. It has been submitted that complainant Bhavani Pher died during trial. Evidences were adduced and the trial Court passed the acquittal order. Hence the present appeal for leave to appeal has been filed by the State.
The accused respondent was confronted under Section 313 CrPC and he denied charges and had deposed before the Court that he was falsely implicated due to enmity.
PW-3 Dr. Ramashanker Barnwal deposed before the Court that PW-2 Smt. Manka Devi was examined by him and she had told him that she was feeling pain throughout her body. However, he had deposed before the court that there was no visible injury found on her person. PW-1 Dilip Kumar had deposed before the Court that he was working in the field at the relevant time and his mother was present in the house. After some time, he went to his house and saw that accused respondent and Malik Tiwari had entered the house and 500 seedlings of chili was asked by them and when his mother asked for money, they did not pay the money and, his mother took the seedlings from their hands. Thereafter, the accused respondent and Malik Tiwari entered his house and beaten his mother. The story was narrated by him to his father and again in the morning the accused respondent and Malik Tiwari came to his house and they threatened to kill the complainant. PW-2 Smt. Manka Devi injured has also reiterated the same fact as narrated by the PW-1 Dilip Kumar.
The record reveals that PW-1 and 2 are the son and mother and they are interested witnesses and there is no independent witness. PW-2 Dilip Kumar in his cross-examination has deposed that the report was written in his house. However, he was unable to state as to who had written the report in the house. He also could not state as to whether the person who wrote the Tahreer, was belonging to his village or he was outsider. He further deposed before the Court that he identified each and every person of the village but he was unable to state the name of the person who had written the Tahreer.
In contradiction PW-2 Smt. Manka Devi has deposed before the Court that she herself, her husband and her son had gone to police station for lodging report and whatever was told by the Darogaji, the report was lodged accordingly. thus, there is contradiction between the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 Smt. Manka Devi because PW-1 has deposed before the Court that report was written in his house whereas PW-2 Smt. Manka Devi deposed before the Court that the report was lodged in the police station. Neither the complaint nor the pw-1 was eyewitness and only on the basis of her evidence, the accused respondent has been implicated. PW-2 in her cross-examination has admitted that as soon as the incident took place, her son came to house but the injured PW-2 Manka Devi did not try to be examined by the doctor and her medical examination was conducted after 12 days by PW-3 Dr. Ramashanker Barnwal who found no external injury on the person of the injured PW-2 Smt. Manka Devi.
The other important fact is also available on record that the Investigating Officer Satya Narain Ram has not been examined and thus, the prosecution case is not proved. The site plan was prepared by him and the same has not been proved and this could only have been done by the Investigating Officer. The examination-in-chief of the PW-3 Dr. Ramashanker as well as his cross-examination indicate that the medical report is not supporting the prosecution case. PW-3 Dr. Ramashanker Barnwal deposed before the Court that the visible injuries were not found on the person of the injured and the medical examination was conducted after 12 days which goes to indicate that there are various contradictions and create doubt in the prosecution case. In view of the above, the judgment and order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Court does not require any interference by this Court. The application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the application for leave is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.
The record of the case be returned to the Court concerned immediately.
Order Date :- 11.4.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS)
