Allahabad High Court
Mansha Ram vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved on :- 03.02.2023
Delivered on :- 04.04.2023
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 145 of 2013
Revisionist :- Mansha Ram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anoop Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
1. The present Criminal Revision No. 135/2013 is filed by complainant Mansharam under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, District Gonda in case no. 1310/2008/02 State Versus Bamb Bahadur and others in Case Crime No. 124/2002 under Section 323, 504 I.P.C, Police Station Intiyathok, District Gonda by which opposite party no. 2 has been released on Probation of Offenders Act on the execution of P.B of Rs. 20,000/- for one year and respondent no. 3 to 5 Pancham, Nankey and Nawdhoo have been acquitted.
2. Wrapping the facts in brief, while Mansaram, son of complainant was going to tie his buffalo in the grow land, accused Bamb Bahadur caught hold of his son on the way and dragged him in his house with the help of Pancham, Nankey and Nawdhoo on 26.07.2001 at about 1 P.M. All the accused were abusing his son and Bamb Bahadur was beating his son with danda and Nankey and Nawdhoo were beating with kicks and fists and Pancham was holding (Axe) Gandasa in his hand and was threatening his son. His son could only be saved when the villagers gathered on the hue and cry of his wife. He came to know about the incident when he returned in the evening. He along with his son tried to lodge F.I.R. in the concerned Police Station but Police did not lodge F.I.R. He got his son medically examined in P.H.C Intiyathok. He moved an application to the higher authorities when his report was not registered in the police station. He further moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and the report was registered by the order of Court.
3. The Investigating Officer investigated the matter, recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared site plan and submitted charge-sheet under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. The statement of the accused was recorded, he denied all the allegations and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution adduced P.W.-1 Jagram, P.W.-2 Mansharam, P.W.-3 Ram Pyari, P.W.-4 Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar Tripathi, P.W.-5 Sub-Inspector Krishna Kumar Shukla and P.W.-6 Dr. R.P. Singh.
5. Learned counsel for the accused admitted the genuineness of all the police papers, therefore, no other witness was produced in Court. After conclusion of the prosecution witnesses, statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied allegations and adduced D.W.-1 Bhagelu Ram as defence witness.
6. After the conclusion of evidence and after hearing arguments from both the sides, learned trial Court reached to the conclusion that no case under Section 504 I.P.C is proved against Bamb Bahadur, Nankey, Pancham and Nawdhoo and thus acquitted all the four accused persons under Section 504 I.P.C. Accused Pancham, Nankey and Nawdhoo were acquitted under Section 323 I.P.C also and accused Bamb Bahadur was convicted and punished under Section 323 I.P.C who was released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act on executing P.B. of Rs. 20,000/- and an undertaking to the effect that he will keep his good conduct for one year during this period.
7. It transpires from ordersheet that petitioner was directed to file supplementary affidavit vide order dated 04.04.2013, but no such supplementary affidavit was ever filed. Notices were issued against opposite parties. Notice upon Nankey and Nawdhoo, opposite party nos. 4 and 5 were personally served. Notice to opposite party no. 3 was served through his son Nankey (opposite party no. 4), and notice to opposite party no. 2 Bamb Bahadur was served through Dhaniram (son of Bamb Bahadur).
8. It transpires from the judgment that opposite party no. 2 Bamb Bahadur was released under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act on the execution of PB of 20,000/- and an undertaking to the condition that he will keep peace during one year. The period of one year has expired on 19.02.2014, the revisionist could not bring on record any fact that during this period of one year, opposite party was found involved in any sort of criminal activities or any criminal case was registered against opposite party no. 2 during this period hence, the revision has become infructuous.
9. Moreover, learned counsel did not appear to show any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the judgment. I perused the Lower Court Record and judgment, P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 are not the eye witness of the incident. P.W.-1, father of the injured was informed about the incident in the evening and P.W.-3, mother of the injured reached to the place of occurrence on his hue and cry. She stated on oath in the Court that the accused had gone and her son was weeping when she reached to the place of occurrence. P.W.-2, who is the injured himself, stated that the incident is nine years old and he did not remember where he sustained injuries. P.W.-6 Dr. R.P. Singh prepared the injury report and stated that the injured sustained one contusion of 1 inch in diameter on the right hip and he was complaining pain in the body.
10. The revisionist could not prove the case against accused under Section 504 I.P.C and on the perusal of record and the statement of witness of the injured and the nature of injury, only case under Section 323 I.P.C. was found to be proved and learned trial Court rightly released opposite party no. 2-Bamb Bahadur under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on executing P.B. of Rs. 20,000/- and an undertaking to keep good conduct during this period.
11. The order of trial Court is in consonance with the provisions of law and suffers with no illegality, irregularity or perversity, hence liable to be upheld.
12. The present Revision is liable to be dismissed in the light of discussions above.
13. The Revision is dismissed.
14. Let a copy of the judgment along with records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 04.04.2023
Divya
