Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Umesh And Ors. on 18 April, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 17 of 2013
Applicant :- State of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Umesh And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application has been filed for leave to appeal to challenge the judgment and order dated 25.08.2012 passed by A.C.J.M. I District Hardoi in Criminal Case No.2412 of 2009 arising out of Case Crime no. 38 of 1997 under sections 323/34,324/34, 504 IPC Police Station Arval District Hardoi thereby acquitting the respondents from the charges levelled against them.
As per the prosecution case the brother of the complainant, namely, Krishna Chandra was winnowing the 'Masoor' crop on the north side of the village near the trees . The potato of the complainant was covered with 'Patar' (bush). The accused respondents of his village started to lift the Patar from his potato. When his brother Krishna Chandra had opposed to lift the Patar, the accused respondents abuses him. On hearing the noise at about 07.00 p.m. the complainant reached on the spot and he tried to pacify the situation however, respondents- accused had beaten the complainant with kicks and fists. On raising the alarm, Rajesh and Krishna Chand reached on the spot . Accused Rakesh had assaulted on his hip with 'Hasia' due to which he received injuries and the accused- respondents ran away from the place of occurrence.
An F.I.R. was lodged in Case Crime No. 37 of 1998 under sections 323,324,504 IPC . The case of investigated and the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet. Thereafter charges were framed on 29.10.1998 against the accused- respondents under section 324/34, 323/34, 504 IPC and the accused- respondents pleaded not guilty and requested for trial. The prosecution produced four witnesses, namely, complainant injured Prem Chand (P.W.-1), Rajesh Kumar (P.W.-2), Arvind Singh Pharmacist ( P.W.-3) and Constable Brij Mohan Yadav (P.W.-4).
The accused-respondents were confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the charges levelled against them and they also deposed before the Court that they were falsely implicated due to enmity.
After adducing the record, the trial court acquitted the accused-respondents, hence the present application for leave to appeal has been filed by the State.
The complainant injured Prem Chand (P.W.-1), Rajesh Kumar ( P.W.-2) had deposed before the court and they had reiterated the prosecution as set up in the FIR in the examination-in-chief.
The complainant injured Prem Chand (P.W.-1) in his cross-examination had deposed that he had reached the place of occurrence as soon as the alarm was raised by his brother Krishna Chandra and he tried to pacify the situation between the brother and the accused respondents, however, the accused respondents had assaulted him due to which he received injury.
Rajesh Kumar ( P.W.-2) in his cross-examination had deposed before the court that he was 20 meters away from the place of occurrence when the complainant injured Prem Chand ( P.W.-1) was assaulted with 'Hasia' by Rakesh Kumar whereas he had earlier deposed before the court that when he reached to the place of occurrence, the assault was made by the accused-respondent/ Rakesh Kumar. Thus he tried to show that the assault was made in front of him whereas in his cross-examination, he had stated that he was 20 meters away from the place of occurrence when the assault was made on Prem Chand/ complainant ( P.W.-1). Similarly, he also deposed before the court that he did not remember whether Krishna Chandra was beaten with kicks and fists by the accused-respondents. He further deposed before the court that he had not lodged the report that Krishna Chandra was beaten with kicks and fists.He has deposed before the court that when he reached to the place of occurrence, he saw that accused -respondents were present on the place of occurrence and they were abusing him. Thus, there is much contradiction between complainant injured Prem Chand (P.W.-1) and Rajesh Kumar ( P.W.-2) as such the prosecution case becomes doubtful.
Arvind Singh Pharmacist ( P.W.-3) has been called before the court. He deposed that Dr. A.K. Gangwar was posted alongwith him and there was no communication between him and Dr. A.K. Gangwar . He further deposed before the Court that no paper was prepared before him and he also denied the signature and writing of Dr. A.K. Gangwar, who had conducted the medical examination of the injured. It is also relevant to mention that the prosecution did not produce Dr. A.K. Gangwar who had conducted the medical examination and injury has not been proved which is not admissible under the Evidence Act.
Looking into the contradiction between complainant injured Prem Chand (P.W.-1) and Rajesh Kumar (P.W.-2) and other facts that the doctor, who conducted the medical examination of the complainant was not produced and the injuries were not proved. Thus, the prosecution case has become doubtful and the benefit of doubt will go to the accused-respondents.
Looking into the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the court below. The application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.
Since, the application for leave to appeal is rejected, the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.4.2023
dk/
