Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Subedar And Another on 22 March, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 161 of 2014
Applicant :- State of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Subedar And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned AGA-I, for State, applicant.
This application under Section 378 CrPC for leave to appeal have been filed to challenge the judgment and order dated 12.6.2014 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, district Faizabad in S.T. No..120 of 2005 under Section 323/34, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act PS Haiderganj, district Faizabad, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
As per prosecution case, the complainant PW-1 Malhu lodged report on 3.7.2005 making allegations that Hiralal son of Bhurey, Subedar son of Ram Kumar, Nanhe son of Ram Dularey, Kapil son of Nanhe had beaten him with Lathi, Danda, Ballam and Farsa on 3.7.2005 at 6.00 a.m. due to which he received serious injuries on head and the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. The incident was reported on 3.7.2005 at 10.00 a.m. and case was registered as Case Crime No.120 of 2005 under Section 323, 504, 50-6 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act at PS Haiderganj, district Faizabad.
The injured was examined by the doctor and he found four injuries on the person of the injured which are as under:-
1. Lacerated wound over left perital region measuing 5.5 cm x 0.75 cm scalp deep clotted blood present, 8 cm above left martial process.
2. Lacerated wound over left forearm (Posterior aspect) measuring 3 cm x 0.5 cm X muscle deep clotted blood present, 4 cm above elbow joint (lip).
3. Contusion over left side back (lateral margin of left scapula) measuring 7 cm x 2 cm x radish by colour.
4. Complain of pain over left leg. No visible eiying are present.
The case was investigated and chargesheet was filed under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST Act. Charges were framed in the aforesaid Sections and the accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court adduced evidence on record. After adducing evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused respondents, vide judgment and order dated 12.6.2014. Hence the present application for leave to appeal has been filed by the State.
The accused respondents were confronted under Section 313 CrPC and they deposed before the Court that they were falsely implicated and they did not commit the offence. The accused respondents have further produced document of a case of civil litigation being Regular Suit No.226 of 1992 and deposed before the Court that because of the aforesaid case, they have been falsely implicated. The statement of PW-1, PW-2 have been recorded before the Court. PW-1 is the complainant-injured and PW-2 is his wife. Both have supported the prosecution case. However, the statement of independent witness PW-3 Khangan was recorded. He became hostile and submitted that no such incident took place before him. He has also stated that he has not seen the accused assaulting the injured.
The record reveals that the weapon assigned are Lathi, Ballam and Farsa used by the accused respondents but there is no injury of Ballam and Farasa and only the injury of Lathi is found on the person of the injured. The site plan is also not supporting the prosecution case. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer has not been proved because the Investigating Officer was not examined. The judgment and order of the trial Court is based on various reasoning which indicates that there is doubt in the place of occurrence as per site plan. Further important fact is noted that the independent witness PW-3 Khangan has become hostile and he has submitted before the Court that no such incident took place before him It is also admitted on record that civil suit is pending between the parties and there is likelihood of false implication. PW-1 and 2 both are interest witnesses. The PW-1 is witness coplainant and PW-2 is also wife of PW-1, the complainant.
In view of the above discussions, the judgment and order passed by the trial is based on sound reasoning and does not call for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.
Since the application for leave to appeal is rejected, the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.3.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS)
