Allahabad High Court
Amar Singh vs State Of U.P. on 24 April, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62752-DB Reserved On- 10.04.2025 Delivered On-24.04.2025 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3423 of 2014 Appellant :- Amar Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Anupam Tripathi,Govind Saran Hajela Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Kashyap Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
(Delivered byMohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J. .)
1. Heard Sri Govind Saran Hajela, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
2. The criminal appeal has been filed by appellant praying for setting-aside the conviction and sentence awarded to appellant under section 376/511 and 302 IPC and acquit him in Sessions Trial No. 533 of 2012, registered as Case Crime No. 315 of 2012 (State Vs. Amar Sngh) Under section 376/511, 302 IPC, Police Station- Jahanabad, District- Pilibhit.
3. Prosecution case is that Girdhari Lal (P.W.-1), gave an application at police station- Jahanabad, Districti- Pilibhit, stating that today i.e, 15.07.2012, at 10:45 hours, his daughter, Mithlesh Kumari and daughter-in-law, Laxmi Devi, had gone to ease themselves in the sugarcane field of co-villager, Amar Singh, appellant. Amar Singh, present in his field, caught hold of his daughter and tried to commit offence of rape against her. When his daughter resisted, Amar Singh, attacked her by hasiya (sickle). His daughter-in-law, Laxmi Devi, P.W.-2, raising alarm ran back to her house and informed him and his son Vijay Pal, P.W.-3.They went with Laxmi Devi running to the field of Amar Singh and on seeing them, Amar Singh, ran towards the agricultural field. They went inside the sugarcane field of Amar Singh and found his daughter, Mithlesh Kumari, lying in injured condition. Hence he prayed that his report may be registered and proceeded accordingly.
4. The aforesaid application was registered as F.I.R at 13:45 hours as Case Crime No. 315/2012, under section 302/376/511 of IPC Police Station Jahanabad, District- Pilibhit. Charge sheet was submitted against the applicant by investigating officer under the aforesaid actions and the trial court also framed charges against the applicant accordingly. The accused-appellant denied the charges and sought trial.
5. To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution produced P.W.-1, Girdhari Lal; P.W.-2, Smt. Laxmi Devi(eye witness); P.W.-3, Vijay Pal (brother of the deceased); P.W.-4, Dr. A.K. Mitra (autopsy surgeon); P.W.-5, Constable Sri Ram Sharma and P.W.-6, S.I. Suresh Kumar Singh (investigating officer).
6. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the prosecution case and produced, Pappu Singh, as D.W.-1 to prove the defence case.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is a case of false implication of the appellant on account of village rivalry. There is no eye witness of the incident except P.W.-2, who is an interested witness and sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the deceased. It is not credible that in the presence of number of cultivators in the field around the place of incident, no one saw the incident and proved the same before the trial court. He has submitted that from the site plan, it is clear that the incident was caused almost in the middle of the field of Amar Singh. The height of sugarcane was more than six feet and it is improbable that anyone will see the person inside from the outside. It has been further submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which belie the prosecution case. P.W.-1, stated that the height of sugarcane crop was up to waist while P.W.-2 stated that it was above the waist while P.W.-6 stated that the height of the same was above the height of man. He has further submitted that injury around the private parts of the deceased and on neck proved that atleast two persons were involved in the incident and not the single accused. Recovery made from the appellant was not in accordance with section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The investigating officer has not complied with the provisions of the law of recovery by recording statement of appellant on recovery memo. D.W.-1 stated that at the time of the incident, the appellant, Amar Singh, had come to his shop for supplying milk. Thereafter, he did not came to his shop and then he came to know that he is incarcerated in jail.
8. Learned AGA Ist appearing for State-respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the offences alleged against appellant have been fully proved by prosecution. This appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. After hearing the rival contentions and prosecution perusal of the material on record, we find that argument of the learned counsel for appellant that the prosecution witnesses, P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimonies are no reliable deserves consideration. It has been repeatedly held by the Courts that the close relatives of the deceased/victim cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that they are closely related to the deceased/victim. Trial court has considered this aspect and made reference to number of judgments of the Apex Court and has recorded the finding that no one will falsely implicate an accused who is innocent. We have also scrutinized the statements of the prosecution witnesses and find that there is nothing doubtful or unnatural in the testimonies which may persuade us to doubt the same. P.W.-2, is the eye witness who had seen the factum of catching hold of the deceased by the appellant in attempt to commit offence of rape against her and after she returned to the scene of incident with P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 all of them saw the appellant running away with weapon in his hand. Not only dead body of the deceased was found from the spot, but bloodstained soil was also recovered by the investigating officer from the place of incident. The place of incident was sugarcane filed of the appellant himself. Therefore, the statements of the prosecution witnesses cannot be doubted.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has also laid stress on the fact that the statement of P.W.-2 was recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 Cr.P.C., after delay of 18-19 days and, therefore, she got the time to build up false story against the appellant.
11. We have gone through the F.I.R. which has been lodged on the day of incident itself at 13:45 hours when the incident took place at 10:45 hour. In the F.I.R. it has been clearly stated that P.W.-2 had accompanied the deceased to the sugarcane field of the appellant where the alleged incident took place. The same thing has been stated by P.W.-2 in her statement recorded before the trial court. Only because there was delay in recording the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., by the investigating officer, no benefit of the same can be given to he appellant. It is settled law that because of mistake on the part of the investigating officer in conducting investigation, the accused cannot be exonerated of charges, unless it is demonstrated that the same affects the credibility of the prosecution case. The trial court has considered the relevant law laid down by the Apex Court in this regard and we need not unnecessarily burden out judgment with the same. We are also conscious of the law that even if there is no recovery of weapon made from the accused, then on the basis of other evidence if the prosecution case stands proved, the accused canot be granted any benefit of the same.
12. Dr. A.K. Mitra, P.W.-4, has found following anti mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:
?(i). A contusion size 6.00 cm x 2.00 cm present outer lateral aspect of neck on right side(upper part).
(ii). An incised wound size 20.00 c.m. x 2.00 c.m x bone deep present on lateral side neck extending from mastoid region to suprasternal notch on left side.
(iii). An incised wound size 25 c.m. x 10 c.m. x bone deep present on supra pubic region extending to vagina and disturbing anatomical structure in the vagina.
(iv). Multiple incised wounds present over outer aspect of abdomen in area of 20 c.m. x 15 cm 5 c.m. below epigastreum.
(v). An abrasion size 2.5 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. present on back region.
(vi) On deeper dissection:-(a) the doctor found neck- vital vessles of neck rupture present, survical vertebrae fracture.
(b) Abdomen large intestine and small intestine perforation seen on multiple places.
(c) Bladder perforatin seen.
(d) Anterior echomosis present labia majora and labia minora hymen, other anatomical structures and vagina are not identifiable clearly.
(e) No evidence of any gravid uterus.
13. Perusal of the injuries shows that they have been caused by a person who has failed in the attempt to commit offence of rape against the deceased. In disgust he has caused ghastly and macabre injuries on the neck and private parts of the body of the deceased. The trial court has found the applicant guilty for committing offences under section 376 IPC read with section 511 IPC and under section 302 IPC. We have not found any ground to doubt the prosecution case and, therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court does not suffers from any illegality. The findings recorded by the trial court are based on material on record and not appear to be perverse.
14. The same is confirmed.
15. Criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.
16. Appellant is in jail. He will carry with remaining sentence.
17. Office is directed to return the record of the trial court and also notify this judgment to the trial court within period of two weeks.
Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Abhishek