Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ram Lotan And 4 Ors. on 23 March, 2023
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 136 of 2015
Applicant :- State of U.P.
Opposite Party :- Ram Lotan And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Prem Chandra Chauhan
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard learned AGA for the State applicant and Sri Prem Chandra Chauhan, learned counsel for the accused respondents.
This application under Section 378 has been filed by the State for leave to appeal to challenge the judgment and order dated 24.2.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Sitapur in S.T. No.401 of 2012, Case Crime No.144 of 2011 under Section 147/148/149/332/353/307/504 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, PS Laharpur, district Sitapur, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
The case as per record is that FIR was lodged by the complainant Constable Najme Hasan at PS Laharpur district Sitapur that on 21.5.2011 he got information on the mobile of his companion Constable Sanjay Kumar Chaubey at 9.50 p.m. that some miscreants were doing loot. Therefore, he along with other constables went to the site at 22.15 p.m. and saw in the torch of motorcycle that 4-5 persons armed with Katta, sticks coming towards them. Therefore, he exhorted and asked them to surrender. The miscreants fired at the police party due to which Constable Sanjay Kumar Chaubey PW-5 received injuries on his chest and the miscreants ran away from the place taking benefit of dark night. The police party also fired on them from the place of occurrence.
The case was registered in Case Crime No.144 of 2011 under Section 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 504 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act at PS Laharpur, district Sitapur against the unknown persons. The case was investigated and chargesheet was filed in the aforesaid case against the accused respondents. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 8.5.2012 and thereafter, the case was committed to Sessions Court and charges were framed under Section 147, 148, 332/149, 307/149, 353/149, 504 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment.The accused respondents pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution produced 10 witnesses, PW-1 complainant Najme Hasan, PW-2 Jalees, pw-3 Sharafat, PW-4 Jahid Ali pw-5 Constable Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, PW-6 Monu, PW-7 Moin, PW-8 Harsh Vardhan Pant Dy. CMO, PW-9 Head Constable Shravan Kumar and PW-10 SO Dev Singh.
The accused respondents were confronted under Section 313 CrPC and they deposed before the Court that they were falsely implicated. The trial Court adduced evidence on record and acquitted accused respondents by the judgment and order dated 24.2.2015. Hence the present application for leave to appeal to challenge the said judgment and order has been filed by the State.
Learned AGA for the State applicant has submitted that injured PW-1 Najme Hasan was examined before the Court and he has stated that the accused respondents fired at PW-5 Constable Sanjay Kumar Chaubey due to which he received injury on chest and he stated that fire was made from the distance of 10 steps. He has stated that he is the eyewitness who has stated the fact. He has stated that the accused respondents are liable to be convicted because it is a case of assault on police party.
On the other hand, Sri Prem Chandra Chauhan learned counsel for the accused respondents has submitted that admittedly, the assault was made from the 10 steps away but as per the statement of PW-8 doctor, it is stated that the said injury can be caused only from a distance of 3-4 feet. Thus, the prosecution story becomes highly doubtful. He has submitted that all other witnesses PW-2, 3, 6 and 7 have stated, they are villagers and they have not seen the incident and no such fire was made in front of them.
The trial Court has taken into consideration all these factual aspect particularly, doctor's opinion has been considered and it is found that the injury which is caused on the chest of the injured, cannot be caused from the 10 steps away rather, it can be caused from 3-4 feet away as mark of blackening and tattooing is present. Thus, the reasoning given by the trial Court in the judgment and order is sound and needs no interference.
Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.
(Appeal)
Since the application for leave to appeal is rejected, the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2023
Rajneesh JR-PS)
