State Of U.P. vs Amrish Singh And Ors.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1267 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


 
Chief Justice's Court
 
Serial No.304
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
(LUCKNOW)
 
***
 

 
APPLICATION U/S 378 No.-27 of 2015
 

 
Pronounced on: January 12, 2023
 

 

 
State of U.P.	                                               .....Appellant
 

 
	
 
Through:- Mrs. Smiti Sahai,  Additional Government Advocate
 

 

 
v/s
 
Amrish Singh and others 	.....Respondents
 

 
	     
 
CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
 
	       HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, JUDGE
 

 

 
ORDER

Rajeev Singh, J.

1. We have heard Mrs.Smiti Sahai, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/appellant and have also perused the record available before us.

2. By means of the present application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., the State has sought leave to appeal to assail the judgment and order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Gangster), Court No.5, District Pratapgarh, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused/respondents, namely, Amrish Singh, Navneet Pratap Singh, Vineet Singh @ Lalle, Laxman Singh @ Baheliya and Anshu Singh in the instant appeal, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 149 I.P.C. and accused/respondents, namely, Mohd. Kaleem Nau @ Guddu and Afsar Ahmad for the offence under Sections 25/27 Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on the written complaint of Ranjeet Singh, First Information Report as Case Crime No.306 of 2008, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Mandhata, District Pratapgarh was lodged on 21.10.2008 with the averments that on 20.10.2008 at 8:00 P.M. Lavkush Singh, elder brother of the informant came back from Mauaima and stayed in front of tea stall of Ashok Gupta with his Scorpio Vehicle No.U.P.70 AV9335. Lavkush Singh was sitting on the driving seat and on the rear seat, Diwakar Singh, Rajan Singh and Bulle @ Ram Naresh were also sitting and they all were watching cinema on the LCD screen. Informant was sitting on the bench at the shop of Ashok Gupta, at the same time, he saw in the light of CFL that co-villagers/respondents, namely, Ambrish Singh, Navneet Pratap Singh, Anshu Singh and Vineet Singh @ Lalle Singh and two others, armed with country made pistol came there by exhorting that today they will eliminate Lavkush Singh, and thereafter, all the aforesaid persons started indiscriminate firing on Lavkush Singh. Thereafter, informant and others rushed to S.R.N. Hospital at Allahabad for treatment of injured-Lavkush Singh, but doctor declared him dead and his body was shifted to postmortem house. The said incident was seen by Ranjeet Singh, Diwakar Singh (brother of the informant), Rajan Singh and Bulle @ Ram Naresh and after committing the said crime, accused/respondents fled away from the place of incident. On the information of ward boy of S.R.N. Hospital, namely, Ramesh Chandra, on 21.10.2008 at 8:00A.M., Police Officials reached for inquest at 8:35 A.M. on 21.10.2008 and inquest of the body of the deceased was conducted. Thereafter, postmortem was also done on the same day at 12:30 P.M.

4. Investigating Officer conducted the spot inspection and recovered blank cartridges, one pair of sleeper and other articles. Weapon was also recovered on the pointing of the accused-persons and statement of witnesses, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against Amrish Singh, Navneet Pratap Singh, Vineet Singh @ Lalle, Mohd. Kaleem Nau @ Guddu, Mohd. Rakish and Afshar Ahmad, Laxman Singh @Baheliya for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 I.P.C. and Section 25/27 of Arms Act and cognizance was taken by the court below.

5. On 08.12.2009, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/149 I.P.C., charge was framed against Amrish Singh, Navneet Pratap Singh, Vineet Singh @ Lalle, Mohd. Kaleem Nau @ Guddu, Mohd. Rakish and Afshar Ahmad, Laxman Singh @Baheliya. On 02.01.2010, under Section 25/27 Arms Act, charge was framed against Afshar Ahmad, Mohd. Kalim and Mohd. Rakish. On 08.05.2012, charge was framed under Section 147, 148, 302/149 I.P.C. against Anshu Singh. Accused/respondents pleaded not guilty and requested for trial. Accused/respondent, namely, Mohd. Rakish died during the course of trial and trial was abated against him.

6. The prosecution has placed eleven witnesses, P.W.1- Ranjeet Singh, P.W.2-Diwakar Singh, P.W.3-Ajeet Kumar Yadav (constable), P.W.4-Dr.Mahendra Pratap, P.W.5-D.D. Shukla (Sub-Inspector), P.W.6-Girish Kumar Tiwari, P.W.7-Ram Ashray Gupta (S.I.), P.W.8-Girindra Singh (Sub-Inspector), P.W.9-Mata Prasad, P.W.10-Shriram Kaushal and P.W.11-Mohd. Shami and twenty three documentary evidences, which was proved by the witnesses.

7. After completion of evidence of the prosecution, statement of the accused/respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, respondents denied the prosecution story and stated that they have been falsely implicated due to political enmity as the deceased was bad in character and he was killed by someone else and false recovery has been shown.

8. The trial court, after hearing the parties, passed the order impugned herein acquitting the respondents. Hence, the present appeal.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that testimony of P.W.1-Ranjeet Singh and P.W.2-Diwakar Singh were disbelieved by the learned trial court on the ground that as per the prosecution case, P.W.2-Diwakar Singh was also sitting on the rear seat of the Scorpio vehicle, but he has not received any injury, when indiscriminate firing was done by the seven persons. He further submitted that trial court also committed error by observing that the case of prosecution was not mentioned in the First Information Report, therefore, present appeal is filed and leave to appeal is liable to be granted and appeal may be admitted.

10. Considering the argument of learned Additional Government Advocate and going through the records, it is evident from the record that P.W.1-Ranjeet Singh, who is claiming himself as eye witness, stated that in the First Information Report, accused/respondents, namely, Ambrish Singh, Navneet Pratap Singh, Anshu Singh, Vineet [email protected] Lalle and two unknown armed with country made pistol came on the spot and started indiscriminate firing by saying that they will eliminate Lavkush Singh, who was sitting in the Scorpio Vehicle at driving seat and watching the cinema on LCD Screen. On the rear seat, P.W.2-Diwakar Singh, Rajan Singh and Ram Naresh @ Bulle were also sitting. P.W.1-Ranjeet Singh, also stated that he was sitting on a bench at tea stall of Ashok Gupta, when the accused/respondents reached on the spot and started indiscriminate firing. In case, the prosecution story is accepted, the deceased was sitting on the driving seat and accused/respondents started indiscriminate firing, but not even a single injury was received to the persons, who were sitting as the rear seat of the vehicle.

11. As in the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, firing was done by the accused/respondents and deceased came down from the vehicle and ran 20 to 25 pace away, then fell down, but P.W.2-Diwakar Singh was sitting in the vehicle and he did not move. The trial court has rightly observed that this behaviour of P.W.2 is highly improbable. It is also not acceptable that indiscriminate firing was done by seven persons, but P.W.2-Diwakar Singh, who was sitting with two others on the rear seat of the vehicle, has not received any firearm injury. In such circumstances, trial court has rightly considered the prosecution evidence and acquitted the accused/respondents.

12. As it is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising its appellate power, the High Court is empowered to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence and this exercise is to be undertaken in order to come to an independent conclusion and unless there are substantial and compelling reasons or very strong reasons to differ from the findings of the trial court, the High Court, as an appellate court in an appeal is not supposed to substitute its findings in case the findings recorded by the trial court are equally plausible. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh And Others vs. State of Haryana reported in (2017) 1 SCC 529 as well as Anwar Ali and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 166.

13. Thus, having considered the matter in its totality and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh's case (supra) and Anwar Ali's case (supra), we find that the learned trial court's findings regarding acquittal of accused/respondents herein are based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidences available on record which do not in any manner appear to be improbable or perverse.

14. On the basis of forgoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the application for leave to appeal lacks merit and deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.

15. Since the application for leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive and the same stands dismissed.

    (Rajeev Singh, J)     (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
 
Lucknow
 
January 12, 2023
 
Amit/-
 

 

 
		Whether the order is speaking   :  Yes/No
 
		Whether the order is reportable :  Yes/No