Allahabad High Court
Phateh Singh vs State Of U.P. on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4305 of 2010
Appellant :- Phateh Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 15.05.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC court no.5 Mathura in S.T. No.418 of 2008 (State vs. Phateh Singh) U/s 363 IPC, P.S. Kosikalan, District Mathura. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has held the appellant Phateh Singh guilty for charge U/s 363 IPC and has imposed four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months additional imprisonment.
The prosecution case is that on 28.04.2008 the complainant Yusuf have sent his niece Km. Parveen aged about 7 years to fetch medicin from Ghantaghar. One person enticed her and get her sit on the rickshaw and took her towards idgah. The victim started to weep. The neighbours informed the complainant then he ran making cries. He got the accused with the victim on NH-2. The accused told his name as Phateh Singh. The complainant took the accused to the police station and lodged the FIR. The case was committed to the court of sessions. The learned trial court framed charges U/s 363 and 366 IPC against the appellant. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. During the trial, the complainant Yusus P.W.-1, Anwar P.W.-2, Intezaar P.W.-3, Km. Parveen (the victim) P.W.-4 and S.I.- N.C. Mishra P.W.-5 were examined. These witnesses have proved the written report as Ex.Ka-1, Site Plan as Ex.Ka-2, charge sheet Ex.Ka-3, Chik FIR Ex.Ka-4. The statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has denied the prosecution case and has also stated that he has been falsely implicated. He used to work as a labour with the complainant and his salary was due on the complainant which he has not paid. On demand, the complainant has falsely implicated him in this case. No evidence in defence has been produced. The learned trial court after hearing the arguments of both the parties, by the impugned judgment and order has held the appellant-accused guilty for charge U/s 363 Cr.P.C. and imposed sentence as stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the material witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution. The rickshaw puller on whose rickshaw the alleged victim was being taken by the accused has not been examined. The FIR has been lodged by the uncle of the victim and not by her parents. All the public witnesses have examined by the prosecution are near relatives. No independent witnesses have been produced. It is also contended that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence and material available on record. The prosecution has failed to proof its case but the learned trial court has given erroneous finding that charge U/s 363 IPC stand proved against the appellant. The impugned judgment and order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Lastly it is contended that appellant accused has served the entire sentence and has also deposited the fine amount and has been released from Jail.
Learned AGA submitted that the prosecution has examined all the relevant witnesses. The complainant, the victim and two other witnesses who were present at the place of occurrence and are eye witnesses. So there is sufficient evidence on record from which the prosecution case stand proved. The learned trial court has recorded its finding properly and there is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment and order of conviction. The sentence imposed is not excessive.
Yusuf P.W.-1 is the complainant and his deposition before the court, has corroborated the allegations of the FIR and stated that on 28.04.2008 at about 2:00 pm he has sent his niece aged about 7 years to fetch the medicine from Ghantaghar, the accused Phateh Singh enticed her and get her sit on a rickshaw and tried to take her away, she started weeping . He was informed by the neighbours then he ran towards them and caught the accused on the spot with the victim. The complainant has also proved the written report Ex.Ka.1.
Anwar (P.W.-2) and Intezaar (P.W.-3) also the eye witnesses of the incident. They have also fully corroborated the prosecution case.
Km. Parveen (P.W.-4) is the victim herself, she has also supported the prosecution version and has stated that when she has gone to purchase the medicine, she was enticed away by Phateh Singh. She was taken on a rickshaw towards Idgah then her uncle and other persons came there and rescued her.
S.I.- N.C. Mishra (P.W.-5) is the Investigating Officer. He has stated about the steps taken during the course of investigation and has proved the site plan and charge-sheet Ex.Ka-2 and Ex.Ka-3.
All the four public witnesses namely Yusuf (P.W.-1) the complainant, Anwar (P.W.-2), Intezaar (P.W.-3) and Kr. Parveen (P.W.-4) the victim have fully corroborated the prosecution version. These witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the prosecution but there is nothing on their cross-examination which discredit their ocular version. The prosecution has produced the direct evidence of the case and the witness are intact. There is no ground to disbelieve them.
The learned trial court has analyzed the evidence. After analysis all the evidence, the learned trial court has given the finding that charge U/s 363 IPC stand proved against the appellant accused. The finding recorded by the learned trial court is just and proper. There is no illegality in it. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed. However as the appellant has already served the entire sentence, he need not surrender.
Copy of this judgment along with lower court record be transmitted to the learned trial court immediately.
Order Date :- 15.3.2023
C. MANI
