Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Laxmi Narayan Vishwakarma And 3 Ors. on 30 July, 2024
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121609-DB Court No. - 48 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 268 of 2019 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Laxmi Narayan Vishwakarma And 3 Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Order on Criminal Misc. Leave to Appeal Application No. Nil of 2019
1. Present application for Leave to appeal has been filed by the State against the judgement and acquittal order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption) Court No.5 Gorakhpur in Sessions Trial Nos.494 of 2017 (State Vs. Laxmi Narain Vishwakarma) and 103 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Gobre and others) arising out of Case Crime No.07 of 2003, thereby the learned trial court has acquitted respondent no.1/Laxmi Narain Vishwakarma of the offences under Sections 467,468,471, 419,420 IPC and Section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act and accused-respondent no.2 to 4, namely, Gobre, Mangre and Malikram of the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC
2. The complainant/Tehsildar Umesh Chandra Lal P.W.-1 lodged F.I.R. in Case Crime No.Nil of 2003 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC and Section 7/12 Prevention of Corruption Act, making allegation that Laxmi Narain Vishwakarma suspended Area Lekhpal was posted at Sonaudha Tarai and when he was posted as Area Lekhpal Bechua, he entered names of Gobre, Mangre and Malikram sons of Ori in the Khatauni of Village Bechua pertaining to the year 1401-1406 Fasli of Khata No.544 by showing that recorded tenure holder Ram Vilas son of Somai had died though he was alive.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written Tehrir, FIR was lodged in Case Crime No. 07 0f 2003 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC and Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act of 2011.
4. The case was investigated by the investigating Officer, who after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused-respondents under Sections under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 IPC and Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act. Charges were framed on 16.10.2006 against accused-respondent no.1/ Laxmi Narain Vishwakarma of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 419,420 IPC and Section 7/13 Prevention of Corruption Act and accused -respondent no. 2 to 4, namely, Gobre, Mangre and Malikram of the offences under Sections 419 and 420 IPC. Accused-respondents denied the charges and pleaded for trial.
5. The prosecution to prove its case, produced the following eight witnesses:-
P.W.-1 Umesh Chandra Lal, Naib Tehsildar P.W.-2 Kifayat Khan alias Liyakat Khan P.W.-3 Ranjit Ram P.W.-4 Chatak Bahadur P.W.-5 Badlu Ram Vishwakarma P.W.-6 Ramroop Verma R. K. P.W.-7 Rajendra Prasad Pathak P.W.-8 Shailendra Kumar Singh
6. 8 exhibits were also produced by the prosecution to prove its case.
7. Accused-respondents were confronted under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the charges and deposed that they were falsely implicated in the case.
8. The trial court after examining the witnesses and adducing the evidence on record, acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence, the present application for leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State.
9. Learned A.G.A.-I for the State has submitted that the case is established beyond reasonable doubt because the land of a living person had been recorded in the name of accused-respondents by showing dead and the statement of P.W.-1 had been disbelieved on the grounds which are not tenable. It has been submitted by learned A.G.A. that fraud has been committed by the accused persons, therefore, they are liable to be convicted.
10. Heard Sri Prem Shanker Prasad, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the Record.
11. After going through the record, we note that P.W.1 deposed before the Court in his cross-examination that he did not ascertain the living status of Ram Vilas son of Somai after lodging the FIR. He further deposed that till the date of deposition before the trial court, he has no knowledge about living status of Ram Vilas son of Somai and he did not enquire to that effect.
12. P.W-2 Kifayat Khan alias Liyakat Khan deposed before the court that Ram Vilas died issue-less and his wife was also pre-deceased to him. He further deposed that after the death of Ram Vilas son of Somai, Gobre, Mangre and Malikram son of Ori got possession of the land as they were nephews of Ram Vilas.
13. P.W.-3 Ranjit Ram also deposed before the Court that Ram Vilas son of Somai was the resident of the same village and his wife was pre-deceased to him and he was issueless. He further deposed that the accused respondents are successor of Late Ram Vilas son of Somai. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have been declared hostile.
14. P.W.-2 Kifayat Khan alias Liyakat Khan, P.W.-3 Ranjit Ram and P.W.-4 Chatak Bahadu did not state before the Court that Ram Vilas son of Somai was living at the time of registration of Will.
15. P.W.-8, Shailendra Kumar Singh deposed before the Court that he enquired that there was no person in the name of Ram Vilas son of Somai in the village of Bacheua. He was further asked a question before the trial court as to how he came to the conclusion that Ram Vilas son of Somai was not belonging to the said village then why he did not accuse the then Pradhan, Up-Pradhan, Lekhpal Keshwav Ram, Revenue Inspector, Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar, Bhinga. He answered that during investigation he was told that the then Pradhan had died. The trial court, after examining the fact witnesses as well as exbibits found that P.W.-1 has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, P.Ws. 2 and 3 have also been declared hostile. Since the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the trial court acquitted the accused respondents as mentioned above.
16. After going through the record, we find that the finding recorded by the trial court is not perverse and against the record. Once the finding is not perverse or against the record, there is no scope to interfere in the impugned judgment and acquittal order which is based on sound reasoning. Thus, the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial court needs no interference.
17. In view of the aforesaid, application for leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.
.
(Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Siddharth,J.) Order Date :- 30.7.2024 dk/-