Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand ..Applicant/ vs Sujeet Kumar Maurya And Others on 14 February, 2024
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Leave to Government Appeal No.179 of 2022
In
Government Appeal No. 86 of 2022
State of Uttarakhand ..Applicant/Appellant
Vs.
Sujeet Kumar Maurya and others ...Respondents
Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General for the State/appellant.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Kirti Sharan Agarwal, Advocate for respondent no.3.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Per: Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This application seeking leave to appeal along with
Delay Condonation Application and Government Appeal, has
been preferred by the State of Uttarakhand against the judgment
and order dated 24.05.2022 passed by Second Additional
Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in Session Trial
No. 104 of 2013, "State Vs. Sunil Kumar Maurya and Others",
whereby the respondent/accused persons were acquitted of the
charges under Sections 364, 364-A, 342, 323 and 506 of IPC.
2. Notices were issued to the respondent/accused
persons to file objection on the application of condoning the
delay in filing the Government Appeal vide order dated
12.10.2022 and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, advocate has put in
appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2, while Mr. Kirti
Sharan Agarwal, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of
respondent no.3 and sought time to file objections to the Delay
Condonation Application as well as on the application seeking
leave to appeal.
3. Today, the matter is listed before this Court. Despite
opportunity, no objections have come forward from the side of
the respondent/accused persons on Delay Condonation
Application as well as on application seeking leave to appeal.
This Court proceeds to hear the parties on both the applications,
on the basis of oral submissions/objections made by respondent/
accused persons.
Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2022)
4. As per office report, there is a delay of 33 days in
filing the Government Appeal. The reasons which have been
assigned by the State for condoning the delay in the application
supported by the affidavit, are sufficient enough to condone the
delay of 33 days in filing the Government Appeal against the
judgment and order impugned. Accordingly, the delay is
condoned. Delay Condonation Application (IA/1/2022) made
therefor, stands allowed.
Leave to Government Appeal
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General
submitted that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned
trial court is not sustainable for the reason that the prosecution
witness PW-1 Amit Kumar (informant/eye witness), PW-2 Sujeet
Kumar Singh @ Rohit (victim), PW-3 Inspector Bhim Bhaskar
Arya (witness of recovery of victim-Sujeet Kumar
Singh@Rohit), PW-4 Sub-Inspector Manish Khatri (witness of
recovery of victim-Sujeet Kumar Singh@Rohit), PW-5 Sharda
Nand (independent recovery witness of victim-Sujeet Kumar
Singh@Rohit), PW-6 Inspector Sallauddin (Investigating
Officer) and PW-7 Constable Chandrashekhar Joshi, have proved
the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. The
charges against the respondent/accused persons were serious
enough.
7. As per the learned Deputy Advocate General, a first
information report was lodged by PW-1-Amit Kumar on
20.10.2012 at Police Station Kotwali Rudrapur stating therein
that on 20.10.2012, he (Amit Kumar) along with Rohit @ Sujeet
Kumar Singh were proceeded from SIDCUL on a motorcycle to
meet a friend of Rohit named as Devendra Gangwar at Transit
Camp. When they reached on footpath at about 05:00 PM, three
persons namely, Sunil Kumar Maurya, Heera Lal Yadav and
Manoj Kumar (respondent/accused persons) residents of
Ajamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, came out from white-coloured Bolero
Car bearing registration No. UP 50Y 3862 and stopped their
motorcycle and took Rohit forcibly with them. The information
was given to Dharmendra Kumar Singh-brother of Rohit, through
the mobile phone of Rohit, which fell down at the place of
incident. A chick FIR was lodged in Case Crime No.535 of 2012
on the same day at 21:30 PM at Police Station Kotwali Rudrapur
against the respondent/accused persons and one-Sunil Kumar
Maurya (died during trial) under Section 364 IPC.
8. On the intervening night of 22.10.2012 at about
11:10 PM, accused Sunil Kumar Maurya (died during trial),
Sujeet Kumar Maurya-respondent no.1 and Manoj Kumar Yadav-
respondent no.2 were arrested from the house of the accused-
Sunil Kumar Maurya on a tip and victim was recovered from
their possession and on the same night at about 11:40 PM,
respondent no.3/accused-Heera Lal Yadav was arrested and the
vehicle bearing registration No. UP 50Y 3862, which was used in
abduction, was also recovered.
9. It is also submitted by the learned Deputy Advocate
General that the prosecution witnesses as referred above,
supported the case of the prosecution and the victim was
recovered from the possession of the respondents/accused
persons. However, it is admitted that the victim PW-2, on his
cross-examination, retracted from his version and did not support
the prosecution.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/
accused persons made the basis of their argument saying therein
that PW-2/victim-Sujeet Kumar Singh@ Rohit though supported
the case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief, but, when
examined in cross-examination, he only admitted that he knew
accused Sunil Kumar Maurya(died during trial) with whom he
had a partnership business. He deposed that he did not know the
persons who were with Sunil Kumar Maurya on the date of
incident and the police have never conducted any identification
of those persons who were with Sunil Kumar Maurya.
11. It is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/
accused persons that the respondent/accused persons were not in
the Bolero Car, which was used in abduction and they never
committed any Maarpeet with the victim/PW-2, even the
victim/PW-2 was not with them and victim also deposed that the
respondent/accused persons were not seen by him at the place,
where he was kept hostage by Sunil Kumar Maurya and he
named the respondent/accused persons on the asking of the
Police.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through the impugned judgment, we are of the view
that there is no illegality and infirmity in the judgment and order,
whereby the respondent/accused persons were acquitted by the
learned trial court. The other witnesses are police witnesses. The
only independent witness, PW-5 Sharda Nand turned hostile.
13. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason
to interfere in the well reasoned judgment recorded by the learned
trial court.
14. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal
is rejected.
15. Consequently, the Government Appeal No. 86 of
2022 stands dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
14.02.2024
PN/-
