Allahabad High Court
State Of Up vs Antram And 3 Others on 8 November, 2024
Bench: Siddharth, Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved On:- 25.10.2024
Delivered On:- 08.11.2024
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176135-DB
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 319 of 2024
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Antram And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- A. K. Sand
Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
1. Heard Ms. Manju Thakur learned A.G.A.-I, Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
2. The present application for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment and acquittal order dated 11.08.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 65 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Antram and others) connected with Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Antram), Sessions Trial No. 67 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Vinod) and Sessions Trial No. 68 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Pappu) arising out of Case Crime Nos. 65 of 2011, 105 of 2011, 168 of 2011 and 169 of 2011 under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C. and Section 25, 25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Kurra, District Mainpuri by which learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons Antram, Girish, Vinod and Pappu.
3. Facts in brief are that on 02.02.2011 the informant Ramdas lodged an F.I.R. under Section 307 I.P.C. at 3:10 am against unknown accused persons stating that at about 12:30 am when he was lying under the thatch of his house, some unknown persons opened fire at him causing injuries on his person. The investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Uday Pal Singh who proceeded to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Raghuraj Singh, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan. He also collected blood stained soil, plain soil and empty cartridges from the place. After the death of the injured the case was converted into an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and investigation was handed over to Station Officer. On the basis of an application moved by son of the deceased the names of accused persons Ram Ratan, Jawahar, Adi Ram and Pradeep were brought into light. Ram Ratan and Jawahar were arrested by the police. In the mean time, Gram Pradhan Mahesh Chand informed I.O. that real culprits were still out and also disclosed that accused Girish made extra judicial confession before him that he, his brother Vinod, Pappu and Antram were being roped by the police in the case of murder of Ram Das. The motive for committing murder was related to the sale deed of land. This fact was supported by Maharaj Singh, the son of deceased. Later on Antram was arrested and one Tamancha 315 Bore and live cartridges were recovered from his possession.
4. Statements of Janved, Dhoop Sri and Sukhdev were recorded on the basis of which the implication of Ram Ratan and Jawahar was found to be false, as a result report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was filed in favour of them. The accused Girish was also arrested and a Tamancha 12 Bore and cartridge were recovered from his possession. At the instance of accused Vinod and Pappu Tamancha was recovered. After conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the aforesaid accused persons. On the basis of charge sheet cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. case was committed for trial. The learned trial court framed the charges against the accused persons under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 25/27 Arms Act which they denied and claimed for trial. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Mukesh Kumar, P.W. 2 Maharaj Singh, P.W. 3 Mahesh Chand Singh, P.W. 4 Dhoop Sri and P.W. 5 Janved Singh as witnesses of fact. P.W. 6 S.I. Mohan Lal, P.W. 7 S.I. Uday Pal Singh, P.W. 8 Dr. D.K. Dubey and P.W. 9 Constable Ajit Singh, P.W. 10 Inspector Chandrahas Tiwari, P.W. 11 S.I. Anuj Kumar Saini, P.W. 12 Rajendra Kumar Sharma, P.W. 13 Constable Mohd. Rafi and P.W. 14 S.I. Ram Kumar Sharma as formal witnesses.
5. P.W. 6 to P.W. 14, the formal witnesses proved the papers prepared by them during the course of investigation and also the post-mortem.
6. The learned trial court, after conclusion of prosecution evidence recorded the statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and opportunity for defence-evidence was given and they adduced the evidence in defence.
7. After hearing the arguments by prosecution and the accused persons, the learned trial court passed the judgment and order in question while acquitting the accused persons of the charges since the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Against the aforesaid judgment and order present application for leave to appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.
9. Learned A.G.A. submitted that in this case the deceased Ramdas was caused injuries with firearm by the present accused persons in the night on 02.02.2011 at about 12:30 am who later on succumbed to injuries. The F.I.R. was lodged by the injured himself though he could not identify the assailants that was the reason it was against unknown culprits. Later on, the accused Girish made extra judicial confession before the Gram Pradhan Mahesh Chand on the basis of which present accused persons were brought into light by the I.O. and weapons used in commission of offence were also recovered from their possession. Though the witnesses of fact have not fully supported the prosecution case but there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the present accused persons are the real culprits who committed murder of the deceased Ramdas. There was motive with the accused persons who committed murder of the deceased in relation to dispute regarding sale deed of the land. The learned trial court did not consider all these facts and the evidence on record. In this way, the prosecution proved its case before the learned trial court beyond reasonable doubt but the learned trial court did not consider and appreciate the evidence on record in proper way and acquitted the accused-persons of the charges which makes the finding recorded by the learned trial court perverse and warranting interference by this Court in this appeal. The judgment and order passed by the learned trial court dated 11.08.2023 is liable to be set aside and the accused-persons/respondents are to be punished.
10. We perused the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court and also the material present on trial court record.
11. In the present case, the occurrence took place on 02.02.2011 at about 12:30 am when the deceased Ramdas was lying under the thatch of his house and some unknown persons caused firearm injuries to him. The F.I.R. was lodged by the injured/deceased himself at the police station on the same day at about 3:10 am against unknown accused persons. Later on he died and case was converted into an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. from Section 307 I.P.C. Investigation was being conducted by S.I. Uday Pal Singh, in the mean time, an application was given to him by son of deceased on 03.02.2011 disclosing the names of accused persons as Ram Ratan, Jawahar, Adi Ram and Pradeep. Ram Ratan and Jawahar were arrested. Later on, Gram Pradhan Mahesh Chand disclosed a new story on the basis of extra judicial confessional statement of accused Girish that he along with his brother Vinod, Pappu and Antram committed murder of Ramdas. On the basis of this disclosure of Gram Pradhan the statements of Janved, Dhoop Sri and Sukhdev were recorded and previously arrested accused persons Ram Ratan and Jawahar were exonerated and report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was sent in their favour. The prosecution case was set up against the present accused/respondents Girish, Vinod, Pappu and Antram. Accused Pappu and Vinod surrendered before the learned court and taken into custody by the I.O. thereafter at their instance weapons were recovered. A Tamancha and cartridge 12 bore were also recovered from the possession of accused Girish.
12. P.W. 1 Mukesh Kumar deposed before the learned trial court that he scribed the tehrir at the instance of injured/deceased Ramdas on which he affixed his thumb impression and signature as Exhibit Ka-1. This witness also took the injured to Safai hospital where he was declared to be dead and information was given to the police. The inquest of the deceased was also prepared in his presence.
13. P.W. 2 Maharaj Singh is son of the deceased Ramdas. He deposed that some unknown assailants caused firearm injuries to his father in the night at about 12:30 am. He arrived at the place of occurrence but the accused persons had fled away. In the mean time, his brother Janved and mother Dhoop Sri also arrived there. He also stated that his father was taken to Safai hospital but in the way he did not disclose the names of assailants. He further stated that he did not see the accused persons/respondents Vinod, Pappu, Antram and Girish while causing injuries to his father but he admitted the fact that the names of Ram Ratan, Jawahar, Adi Ram and Pradeep were mentioned in the application given by him to the police though he did not see the aforesaid persons while making fire at his father.
14. P.W. 3 Mahesh Chand deposed that unknown assailants caused injuries to the deceased Ramdas on 02.02.2011 who later on succumbed to injuries. He did not know about the persons whose names were mentioned by the son of deceased Ramdas. He also stated that the accused Girish Yadav never told him about the committing of incident either by himself or with his brother Vinod, Pappu and Antram.
15. P.W. 4 Dhoop Sri is wife of the deceased Ramdas who deposed that her husband was lying under the thatch where his son Maharaj Singh was also lying. She and her son Janved were lying inside the house where they heard the noise of barking dogs and came out. They also heard the sound of firearm. When she arrived at the spot her husband was lying on the ground and there was bleeding from his body. She saw accused Girish, Pappu, Vinod and Antram while fleeing away from there. Her husband was taken to police station Kurra on tractor where he got a Tehrir scribed by Mukesh Kumar. In the way, he told that Vinod and Pappu made fire on him while Girish and Antram were standing in a side. After telling this fact to her, he died near the Safai hospital. She also disclosed about the sale deed executed by her husband in favour of accused Vinod for Rs. 75,000/-. There was enmity between the accused and the deceased.
16. P.W. 5 Janved, the son of the deceased also deposed that on 02.02.2011 at about 12:30 am his father was lying asleep under the thatch. There was none besides him and he himself was lying asleep inside the room with his mother and nephew. Hearing the noise of barking dogs and firearm, he came out of the room where his father was lying on the ground and accused Antram, Girish, Vinod and Pappu were standing there. When he made noise they fled away. The people from the village came there and took his father to police station Kurra then to Karhal and then to Safai hospital till then his father was alive. He also stated about the dispute relating to sale deed executed by his father in favour of Vinod. He said he had identified the accused persons in the torch light.
17. The empty cartridge recovered from the spot and the Tamancha and cartridges recovered from the possession of accused Antram were sent to F.S.L. where it was found that the seal used on both the samples were different which created doubt about the sanctity of samples said to be recovered from the place of occurrence and the accused.
18. The question is as to whether present respondents/accused persons committed murder of the deceased Ramdas on 02.02.2011 at about 12:30 am.
19. In this regard it is important to note that the deceased was alive at the time of lodging F.I.R. and at his instance P.W. 1 Mukesh Kumar scribed the Tehrir against the unknown assailants and just after commission of incident F.I.R. was lodged at about 3:10 pm at the police station. It shows that deceased did not identify the assailants. P.W. 4 Dhoop Sri and P.W. 5 Janved are wife and son of the deceased. Both of them stated that they were lying asleep inside the room near the place of occurrence. They came out after hearing the noise of barking dogs and the fire. They also stated that they saw the accused Girish, Pappu, Antram and Vinod standing there who fled away thereafter. These witnesses also stated that the injured/deceased was taken to police station Kurra and then to Safai hospital. In the way deceased told them about the incident in which accused persons made fire at him but a Tehrir was written by P.W. 1 Mukesh Kumar against the unknown persons and it was at the instance of deceased himself. He proved this fact before the learned trial court as P.W. 1. It shows that during the course of journey from the place of occurrence to the police station the name of assailant was not known to the injured/deceased though it was lodged at 3:10 am. This fact does not inspire confidence about the statements as deposed by P.W. 4 Dhoop Sri, P.W. 5 Janved, wife and son of the deceased, that the names of assailants were also told by the injured to them in the way from the place of occurrence to the police station and the hospital. P.W. 1 also did not disclose the fact that any such statement was made to him by the injured. P.W. 2 Maharaj Singh is also son of the deceased who did not identify the assailants though he also came on the spot at the time of incident. He also stated about the presence of his mother Dhoop Sri and brother Janved on the place of occurrence at that time. He also took his father to police station and then to hospital. He also admitted the fact that the Tehrir was scribed by Mukesh Kumar and was given at the police station then the injured was sent to Safai Hospital but in the way he did not disclose the name of assailants. Again he cleared that he did not see the accused Girish, Antram, Vinod and Pappu while causing injuries. In this way, the statements of P.W. 4 Dhoop Sri, P.W. 5 Janved about the complicity of the accused persons/respondents in causing injuries with firearm to the deceased does not get support from the statement of P.W. 2 Maharaj Singh and P.W. 1 Mukesh Kumar. P.W. 3 Mahesh Chand is Gram Pradhan who disclosed the names of present respondents/accused persons as real culprits on the basis of extra judicial confessional statement of Girish. He clearly stated that no any such extra judicial confession was made by Girish before him. This statement of P.W. 3 Mahesh Chand also negates the story of prosecution about involvement of the present respondents/accused persons in commission of murder of the deceased which is based on extra judicial confession. There is no any other material on record to support the prosecution version that present respondents/accused persons committed murder of the deceased by causing firearm injuries on the person of the deceased on 02.02.2011 in the night at about 12:30 am.
20. Thus, on thorough scrutiny of evidence on record and the perusal of judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, there appears no any kind of infirmity or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned court while acquitting the accused persons/respondents, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court, as a result, application for leave to appeal is liable to be rejected.
21. Hence the application for leave to appeal is hereby rejected and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
22. Trial court record be remitted back to the learned court concerned.
Order Date:- 08.11.2024
Suraj Srivastav
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
