Allahabad High Court
Smt.Munni vs State Of U.P.And 5 Ors. on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:56220
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 579 of 2006
Revisionist :- Smt.Munni
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 5 Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- R.A.Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,K.K.Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. By means of this criminal revision, complainant/first informant Smt. Munni has challenged the order dated 14.09.2006 passed in S.T. No.133 of 2004 arising out of case crime no.41 of 2003, under Section 308 I.P.C.,P.S.Hasangaj, District Unnao whereby respondent no.3 to 6 have been acquitted for the charge under Section 308 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
2. As none responds for the revisionist or for the respondents, therefore, I have heard learned A.G.A. for respondent no.1 and 2 and perused the material on record including the original record which has been called for from the trial court.
3. The facts relevant for purpose of this revision are as below:-
The first informant Munni filed an F.I.R. with the allegations that at about 10.00 A.M. in the morning of 08.02.2003, her husband was sitting out side her house; accused persons Ram Prasad holding countrymade pistol, Gaya Prasad holding axe and Babalu holding lathi and fourth accused Dinesh holding banka came over there and physically assaulted her husband leaving him injured. On the basis of this F.I.R., matter was investigated upon and the accused persons were chargesheeted under Section 308 I.P.C. The trial was held by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution examined first informant Munni, the injured Sant Kumar, the witnesses of fact as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and certain formal witnesses including doctor. Learned trial court after hearing both the sides recorded the finding that charges against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the four accused persons.
4. I went through the pleas taken by the revisionist in the revision memo to find out specific contention which might have been taken by the revisionist to assail the order in question. In nutshell it has been argued that the trial court did not properly evaluate the evidence given by the injured Sant Kumar and his wife as well as the medical evidence given by P.W.4. The facts, which ought not to have been given importance, have been considered and focused upon by the trial court to give undue benefit to the defence.
5. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that learned trial court found a number of glaring discrepancies and gaps between the prosecution story and the evidence given by witnesses. The trial court found that as per prosecution story, all the accused persons, when they assaulted the injured, were holding weapons of the nature like axe, banka and tamancha but medical evidence showed that all the injures were caused by blunt weapons; none of the injures could have been caused by those weapons, had those weapons were used in the manner in which they are ordinarily usable. Learned trial court besides recording a number of inconsistencies in the oral evidence given by two witnesses of fact, found substance in the submissions given from the defence side that they have been falsely implicated in the case because of previous enmity. There has been previous litigation between the family of the accused side and certain persons of complainant side. This point has been dealt with by the trial court at page 10 of the judgement. Learned court took into consideration the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the defence in this regard.
6. Learned trial court has given cogent reasons for returning the finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The finding do not appear to be perverse or against the evidence. The revisional court is aware of its limitation and has given thought to the conclusions drawn by the trial court. The view taken by the trial court, is one of the probable view, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the judgement.
7. The criminal revision lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
Asha
