Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Jai Singh on 17 January, 2023
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1000142 of 2015
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Jai Singh
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Vineet Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent while the name of Shri Vineet Kumar Mishra is printed in the cause list.
By means of the instant application moved under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., the State has requested for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.475 of 2011 (State Vs. Jai Singh), arising out of Case Crime No.1514 of 2011, under Sections 306, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi, whereby the accused person/respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against him of all the charges levelled against him.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of the case are to the tune that the husband of the informant namely Suresh Chandra was residing at Chauhan Thok, Hardoi and the informant had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the accused/respondent - Jai Singh and have also taken Rs.50,000/- as advance and the rate on which the land was agreed to be sold, was Rs.1,80,000/- per kachcha bigha and the time of one year was stipulated for execution of sale deed, but even after lapse of 3 years, respondent/accused did not get the sale deed executed and have also taken Rs.60,000/- back from her husband. It is also stated that intimidation was also given by instant respondent through his associates and on 21.06.2011 at about 01.00pm. the aforesaid respondent Jai Singh had arrived at her house and have intimidated the deceased and also hurled filthy abuses and have specifically threatened him that he will make his life miserable unless all the money received by him is paid and it is on account of this humiliation and cruelty, her husband had committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance and on being taken to the hospital, he was declared dead.
After investigation of these allegations, charge sheet was filed against the respondent under Sections 504, 406, 306 I.P.C. and the charges were also framed in these sections by the trial court.
The prosecution in order to prove its case before the trial court has presented P.W.-1 informant Smt. Rani, P.W.-2 Sonu Shukla, P.W.-3 Constable Jagdish Prasad, P.W.-4 Km. Soni Shukla, P.W.-5 Raj Kumar Tiwari, P.W.-6 S.I./investigating officer J.N. Bajpai, P.W.-7 Dr. G.K. Maheshwari and P.W.-8 Rtd. S.I. Ram Awadh Rao. Apart from it, the prosecution has also relied on documentary evidence.
After recording of the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of accused person under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein they denied the evidence produced by the prosecution and claimed to have been falsely implicated.
The trial court after appreciating the evidence available on record, did not find the case of the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused persons of all the charges framed against them.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal alongwith application to grant leave to appeal.
Learned Additional Government Advocate while pressing the application for grant of leave to appeal submits that the trial court has committed manifest illegality in appreciating the evidence available on record and has accorded the acquittal of the respondent on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and has completely ignored the reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses produced before it.
It is further submitted that the trial court has completely disregarded the evidence of the reliable prosecution witnesses only on account of certain minor contradiction emerging in their testimony and therefore, the State be granted leave to appeal in order to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal.
Having heard learned Additional Government Advocate and having perused the record, in the back ground of the submissions made by learned Additional Government Advocate, it would be evident that the trial court has doubted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on account of certain answers given by the prosecution witness no.-1 Smt. Rani in her cross examination and thus the trial court opined that she appears to be a clever witness and the state of affairs narrated by her is not truthful. The trial court has also found glaring contradictions in the facts as narrated in the F.I.R. and as stated by the informant P.W.-1 Smt. Rani before the trial court. The trial court was also of the opinion that if any pressure was applied by the respondent in order to subject the deceased to execute sale deed may not amount to abatement as defined under Section 107 of the I.P.C. as it was his legal right to get the sale deed executed within the time stipulated in the agreement. Moreover the trial court has also noticed that there is nothing on record, which may suggest that death of the deceased was unnatural or it was a suicide at all.
I have very carefully perused the record and have found that the conclusions drawn by the trial court, mentioned herein-before, could not be stated to be without any basis. Admittedly there is nothing on record, which may reflect remotely that the death of the deceased is in abnormal circumstances as even the cause of the death of the deceased could not be ascertained, therefore, at first viscera was not even sent for forensic examination and no evidence is available, which may suggest that the death of the deceased has been caused by consuming poison, secondly the perusal of the statement of all the prosecution witnesses excluding P.W.-4 Km. Soni Shukla would reveal that the instances, which has been shown by these witnesses perhaps may not be sufficient to cause any abatement as defined under Section 107 I.P.C. Significantly the daughter of the deceased namely Km. Soni Shukla, who has also testified before the trial court as P.W.-4, has been declared hostile. Thus cumulative effect of the evidence tendered by the prosecution before the trial court was that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before the trial court.
It is to be recalled that while exercising the powers with regard to the appeal preferred against acquittal, the High Court is required to re-appreciate, review, reconsider the evidence and this exercise is to be undertaken to come to an independent assessment of the evidence, which was available before the trial court having regard to the fact that an accused of the crime is having an initial presumption of innocence in his favour and the said presumption has become fortified by his acquittal. Thus substantial and compelling reasons are required to differ from the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court and the same could only be done when the findings of the trial court are either perverse or not based on evidence available on record, which is not a case in the instant case.
Thus, having considered the evidence of the prosecution led before the trial court in its totality and the view adopted by the trial court in acquitting the accused persons it could not be said to be not a probable view and we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the trial court are based on the evidence available on record, which could not be termed as either perverse or improbable, thus in our considered opinion, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is hereby refused and the application to grant leave to file appeal is rejected.
Since application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the appeal also does not survive. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.1.2023
Anupam S/-
