Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Pappu Singh And 2 Others on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 129 of 2016
Applicant :- State of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Pappu Singh And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Abdul Rafique
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant State Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh learned AGA-I and perused record.
2. This application has been filed praying for leave to appeal to challenge the judgment and order dated 5.4.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sitapur in S.T. No.142/2003 case crime No.133/1999 whereby, the accused respondents have been acquitted of charges levelled against them under Section 147, 148, 323/149, 354, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) 10, 3 (1)11 and 3 (2) 3 of SC/ST Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it has been mentioned n the FIR that the accused respondents were cutting Eucalyptus plants which were planted in the Khalihan of the complainant. On the protest raised by husband of the complainant, the accused respondents used caste based words and had torn clothes of the complainant and also had beaten her. On alarm raised, the villagers reached on the place of incident and the accused respondents ran away by threatening the complainant and his family.
4. In pursuance of the directions issued by the State Government, FIR was lodged on 27.10.1999 in case crime No.133 of 1999 under Section 147, 148, 323, 354, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) 10 SC/ST Act at PS Maanpur district Sitapur.
5. The Investigating Officer investigated the case and after recording statement, preparing site-plan etc., he filed chargesheet under Section 147, 148, 323, 354, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) 10 SC/ST Act.
6. The cognizance was taken by the Trial Court and case was committed. Thereafter, charges were framed on 7.6.2006 under Section 147, 148, 323/149, 354, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) 10, 3(2) 3 and 3 (1)11 of SC/ST Act. The prosecution produced five witnesses namely, PW-1 complainant Sudebi, PW-2 Buddha, PW-3 Ramdas, PW-4 Dujaee and PW-5 SI Mohd. Arif.
7. The accused respondents were confronted under Section 313 CrPC. They deposed before the Court that the witnesses of facts have given false statement and have falsely implicated the accused respondents due to enmity.
8. After adducing evidence on record, the Trial Court acquitted the accused respondents. Hence the application for leave to appeal has been filed along with the appeal.
9. PW-1 is the injured complainant and she was examined before the Court and entire fact as narrated in the FIR has been deposed by her before the Court. The other witnesses PW-2, 3 and 4 have been examined and they have also tried to support the prosecution case. However in cross-examination, there were contradictions in the statements before the Court. PW-5 Investigating Officer has also been examined and he proved the documents.
10. After going through the record it has come in the statement of PW-1 that her husband had raised alarm and made protest from cutting plants but surprisingly, he has not been examined by the Court and thus, this is strange as to why, the husband who is witness of the incident has not been examined. PW-3 in his cross-examination has deposed before the Court that he had seen the trees which were carried away by the accused respondents but he had not seen that the accused respondents were cutting the trees. PW-1 in her cross-examination has deposed that Barbari Singh died during trial. PW-1 has also deposed before the Trial Court that in place of four persons, the two persons were cutting the trees. PW-1 has deposed before the Court that she was beaten by the accused respondents and her clothes were torn but no medical examination was done and she has not produced herself before the doctor to get herself medically examined. This fact shows doubt in the prosecution case because once the PW-1 complainant was beaten and her clothes were torn and she was thrashed on the ground, certainly, she would have got injury but she did not get herself medically examined before the doctor. This fact creates lots of doubt in the prosecution case. The prosecution has also not produced her clothes before the Trial Court which were torn by the accused respondents. The entire prosecution appears to be doubtful. Therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused respondents and the Trial Court has rightly passed the judgment of acquittal. The judgment and order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and does not need to call for interference by this Court. Hence the application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected.
11. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected and the appeal is also dismissed.
12. The record of this case be returned to the Court concerned immediately.
Order Date :- 27.4.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS)
