Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Dharmraj Singh And Ors. on 21 July, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:47930
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 102 of 2014
Applicant :- State of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Dharmraj Singh And Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A.-1 for the State.
2. This application under Section 378 CrPC has been filed for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.02.2014 passed by Special Judge (S.C/S.T) Act, District Gonda in S.T. No.105 of 2011 whereby, the accused respondents have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 147, 323/149, 504, 506 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act, in Case Crime No. 22 of 2007 Police Station Umari Begumganj, District Gonda.
3. As per prosecution case, it is stated by the complainant namely Satai that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste. Accused respondents namely Dharmraj Singh, Arju Singh, Jagdamba Singh, Lallan Singh, Pappu Singh and Babban Singh used to take forced labour (begaar) from the complainant and did not pay him wages. They used to take work from him without paying any wages and also used to block the way of the complainant. The complainant further stated in the complaint that he had filed an application before the C.O and S.D.M, Tarabganj, Gonda. As soon as the accused respondents came to know that he had given application to the authorities, they came to the house of the complainant on 11.12.2006 at about 11 A.M armed with stick and rebuked the complainant but he ran away and entered inside his house. The accused respondents also entered into his house and had beaten him. The complainant further stated that he tried to lodge the First Information Report but the same was not lodged.
4. The complainant went to the District Hospital, Gonda and his medical examination was conducted. As per medical examination following injuries were sustained by P.W.-1 Satai:-
(i)- Contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on the right arm in the center of the front.
(ii)- Complaint of pain in the left leg.
(iii)- Contusion 7 cm X 1 cm on left side back in scapular region.
(iv)- Contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on the left side of the back from injury number-3 to 9 cm below.
(v)- Contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on the left side of the back injury number-4 to 8 cm below.
(vi)- Contusion 5 cm x 1 cm on the left side lower on the back.
(vii)- Contusion 8 cm x 1 cm on the right side 4 cm on the back below the lower core of the scapula bone.
(viii)- Contusion 6 cm x 1 cm Wound on the back on the right side 11 cm below injury no. 7.
(ix)- Contusion 8 cm x 1 cm in the left leg in the middle of the back side.
5. In the medical examination of P.W.-2 Adharey, injuries sustained by him are as follows:-
(i)- Ulcerative swelling 3 cm x 3 cm on the back side of the right leg 10 cm above the heel.
(ii)- Contusion 11 cm X 1.5 cm 7 cm on right thigh above right knee.
(iii)- Complaint of pain on the left leg.
(iv)- Contusion 5 cm X 1 cm on the back side of the left shoulder.
(v). Contusion 5 cm X 1 cm on the left arm, 13 cm below the left shoulder on the back side.
6. Since the F.I.R of the complainant was not lodged therefore he moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in the Court and in pursuance of the order dated 22.12.2006, the First Information Report was lodged in Case Crime No. 22 of 2007 under Section 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act.
7. The case was investigated by the Investigating Officer and chargesheet was filed under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C/S.T (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. The charges were framed on 17.01.2012 under Sections 147, 323/149, 504, 506 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) S.C./S.T Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and pleaded for trial.
8. The prosecution produced four witnesses P.W.-1 Satai, P.W.-2 Adharey, P.W.-3 Constable Ram Sahai and P.W.-4 Dr. Jabed Hayaat. The accused respondents were confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They deposed before the Court that they were falsely implicated and denied all the charges framed against them. They further deposed before the Court that they were falsely implicated due to election of village Pradhan and on the behest of Balraj Singh, they were planted and case was registered against them. The trial court after adducing evidence available on record acquitted the accused respondents. Hence the present application for leave to appeal is filed by the State.
9. P.W.-1 Satai has deposed before the Court that the accused respondents entered into his house and had beaten him with stick but the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C does not mention the said fact and the application does not indicate that he was beaten by the accused respondents by kicks and firsts.
10. The statement of P.W.-2 Adharey was also recorded and he deposed before the Court that the accused respondents assaulted Satai towards the South side of his house and he further stated that the said place of occurrence is situated towards the north side of the house of Satai whereas P.W.-1 Satai stated that he was assaulted in front of his house by the accused respondents. It is thus clear that there are various contradictions in the statements of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 and the place of occurrence of the incident is also doubtful.
11. P.W.-1 Satai has deposed before the Court that enmity was going on between the parties and Court case was also going on between the parties. He further admitted that the accused Arjun Singh had lodged an F.I.R against him in which he had gone to jail. He further admitted that there were four other persons involved in the said F.I.R. lodged by accused Arjun Singh. The statement further indicates that the proceedings under Section 107, 151 Cr.P.C were also resorted to by the police.
12. P.W.-1 Satai has nowhere indicated that on which date he had gone to the police station to lodge the First Information Report. The medical examination was conducted on the date of occurrence of the said incident whereas P.W.-1 Satai had deposed in his cross-examination that he was medically examined after five or six days from the date of incident. He further deposed that after three days from the date of incident, he alone went to the police station to lodge the First Information Report. Later, he stated that the counsel had prepared the application and the advocate did not tell him the contents of the application thus, P.W.-1 did not know the content of the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
13. The other fact is very important that there were 6 accused persons according to the statement of P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and all of them indiscriminately assaulted them but the injuries sustained by them are on non-vital parts of the body and are simple in nature. The other very important fact is that as per prosecution case, the incident took place over the dispute of way between the parties.
14.The complainant was not able to prove the case and the case could not be established beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal order has been passed on the basis of sound reasoning thus, the judgment passed by the trial court needs no interference and the leave to application is liable to be rejected.
15. Accordingly, the application for leave is rejected and consequently, the appeal is also rejected.
16. Let lower Court records be sent back immediately.
Order Date :- 21.7.2023
DiVYa
