State Of U.P. vs Jitendra Kumar S/O Hargovind
2023 Latest Caselaw 2796 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 37 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar S/O Hargovind
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

This appeal is by the State alongwith application for grant of leave to challenge the judgment and order dated 21.10.2022, passed by the Session Judge, Jhansi in Session Trial No.01 of 2014 (State of U.P. vs. Vinod Kumar and another) arising out of Case Crime No.148 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Erich, District Jhansi, whereby the accused respondent has been acquitted.

As per the prosecution case the first informant (PW-1) gave a written report as per which his wife was living alone in village Gauti and his three sons were not in the village. In the night of 01.08.2013 at about 09.00 PM the deceased was done to death on account of 14 injuries (i.e. lacerated wound and abrasion) caused to her primarily by a blunt object. The investigation ultimately concluded with submission of charge sheet against the accused respondent. The basis of implication of the accused was the prior enmity in respect of certain immovable property for which proceedings were pending before the civil court and the statement of PW-2 and PW-3, who allegedly saw the accused leaving soon after assaulting the deceased.

It is not in dispute that this is a case of circumstantial evidence. As per the court below the chain of events pointing to hypothesis of guilt on part of the accused is not complete. The basis for arriving at such conclusion is the fact that the star prosecution witnesses, namely Kalyan Chandra (PW-2) and Bhagwat (PW-3) who allegedly saw the accused leaving soon after the incident have not supported the prosecution case. There is no other witness produced by the prosecution in the matter. There is no witness of last seen, either. So far as the statements of PW-7 and PW-8 are concerned they are the sons of deceased and their source of information primarily is disclosure made by PW-2 and PW-3. Once PW-2 and PW-3 have not supported the prosecution case the testimony of PW-7 and PW-8, based on hearsay from them, cannot be relied upon. Merely on the basis of statement of PW-1 that his wife had informed him that accused would kill her would not be sufficient to convict the accused in a case of circumstantial evidence. No C.D.R. of telephone call received from the deceased by PW-1 is on record, either. The court below on the basis of evidence led in the matter has, therefore, returned a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

We have carefully examined the judgment of acquittal and on the basis of evidence led in the matter it cannot be said that the view taken by the court below to acquit the accused is not a permissible view. Law is otherwise settled that in the event view taken by the court is a permissible view in the facts of the case this Court would not interfere with the judgment of acquittal only because a different view could be taken.

In view of the above the prayer made to grant leave is refused. The appeal is consequently dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.1.2023

Ashok Kr.