Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Chatrapal on 3 March, 2014
Author: Ravindra Singh
Bench: Ravindra Singh, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 42 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7407 of 2006 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Chatrapal Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the lower court's record.
This application for granting the leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.2, Bareilly in S.T. No. 729/2004, whereby accused respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C.
Having heard learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perusing the lower court's record, it reveals that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Harbhajan Singh P.W.1 on 12.08.2003 at 1:20 p.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 5.8.2003 at about 7:00 a.m. alleging therein that on the above date and time, he was weeding (Niroi( the rice crops in his field. All of sudden, fire was made from the northern side of his filed and pellets entered in his body. He saw the accused respondent Chatrapal was standing on the boundary of the field and he has discharged fire to kill him. One another person was also standing with the accused respondent Chatrapal who has concealed his identity. On his raising alarm, Boota Singh and so many other persons reached there and the accused respondent fled away. The accused respondent Chatrapal was inimical to him.
According to the medical report, the injured Harbhanjan Singh has sustained seven injuries on his person among which injury nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 were lacerated wounds and injury nos. 5 and 6 were abrasion. Injury nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 were kept under observation and advised for X-ray. After X-ray of those injuries, Doctor opined that all the injuries kept under observation were of ordinary nature and other injuries were also ordinary nature. All the injuries were possible to be caused at 7:00 a.m. on 5.8.2003. No injury was found on the vital part of the body.
The complainant Harbhajan Singh and Boota Singh were examined as eye witnesses. They have supported the prosecution case. The accused respondent in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied his involvement in the alleged offence. He further told that the F.I.R. has been lodged after 7 days of the incident, in collusiveness. There was enmity between the accused respondent and brother of complainant. Due to that enmity, he was wrongly implicated in the case. On the day of the alleged incident, he was in his in-law's house (Sasural).
After examination of the statements of the witnesses and material evidence on record, the learned trial court found that injuries sustained by the injured were not possible to be caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution, seven days delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and possibility of false implication of the accused respondent in the case due to enmity.
In such circumstances, the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents by holding that prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused respondent beyond the shadow of doubt.
We have also perused the statement of the witnesses and lower court's record which reveals that the trial court has considered all the statements of the witnesses and documents available on record, there is no mis-reading of the evidence.
The trial court has taken the view of acquittal which is possible view, it does not require any interference, therefore, the prayer the granting leave to appeal is refused. Accordingly, this application for granting the leave to appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.3.2014 Monika Court No. - 42 On memo of appeal.
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7407 of 2006 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Chatrapal Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the lower court's record.
The application for granting the leave to appeal has been refused today, consequently this appeal is also dismissed.
Let the lower court's record be sent back to the concerned court forthwith.
Order Date :- 3.3.2014 Monika