Allahabad High Court
Rajpati Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Others on 11 March, 2014
Bench: Ravindra Singh, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 3775 of 2012 Appellant :- Rajpati Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhanshu Srivastava,Archana Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Yadunath Singh Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
This appeal is listed peremptorily but counsel for the appellant and counsel for the accused respondents is not present. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the lower court's record.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.6.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Court No. 1, Jaunpur in S.T. No. 183/2009, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 436 and 427 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./N.C.R. of this case has been lodged on oral dictation of the complainant Rajpati Yadav P.W.1 on 3.1.2007 at 7:40 a.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 31.12.2006 at about 10:30 a.m. alleging therein that due to dispute of abadi land, the accused respondents Samar Bahadur Singh, Sabhajeet Singh, Anil Singh and Vinod Singh have abused and beaten him by giving lathi, dana blows. On hearing alarm, Ranjeet Singh came to rescue him, the accused respondents have also beaten him. The injured Ranjeet Singh was medically examined at P.H.C. Rampur, District Jaunpur on 2.1.2007 at 11:00 a.m. The complainant moved an application under section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. before the Court on 6.1.2007 stating therein that a cross case of the incident has also been registered, on behalf of the accused respondent Samar Bahadur Singh. Therefore, the matter related to his N.C.R. No.1 of 2007 should also be investigated by the Police. Vide order dated 27.1.2007 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, Jaunpur, S.H.O. Rampur was directed to investigate the matter covered under N.C.R. No. 1 of 2007.
According to the medical examination report, the injured Ranjeet Singh sustained three injuries on his person in which injury nos. 1 and 3 were contusions and injury no. 2 was abraded contusion. He has also made complaint of pain in front of chest. As per the opinion of Doctor, injury no.1 contusion was kept under observation and advised for X-ray, injury nos. 2 and 3 was simple. No visible injury was found on the alleged place of complaint. Duration of injuries was within two days and they may be caused by hard and blunt object.
In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Rajpati Yadav P.W.1, Ranjeet Singh P.W.2 and Shiv Lakhan Singh P.W.3 as eye witnesses. They have supported the prosecution story. In the statements recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused respondents denied the prosecution story. They told that the witnesses have given false evidence against them due to enmity. They have further stated that on the day of incident, the complainant and his other aides Rajendra, Ravindra, Mahendra, Rang Bahadur and Sabhajeet came with dangerous weapons beaten them and caused ordinary and dangerous injuries to accused respondents Samar Bahadur, Anil Singh etc., to escape from the above case, this case has been lodged after obtaining legal advice.
The trial court has recorded the categorical findings to the effect that complainant was not present at the spot, on the time of the incident and he was not eye witness of the incident. He has lodged the N.C.R. on the basis of the information given to him by women of his family and Ranjeet Singh. His Maria was neither burnt nor this was told to Investigation Officer by him. Injured Ranjeet Singh P.W.2 and P.W.3 Shiv Lakhan Singh were the interested witnesses. Presence of these witnesses were also found doubtful by the learned trial court. P.W.2 Ranjeet Singh was also son of accused Ravindra Singh of cross case. There was also delay in recording of the N.C.R. by three days without assigning any reason, pendency of the cross case in respect of incident and possibility of lodging a wrong N.C.R. after obtaining legal advice, even application under section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. was also not moved by him.
In such circumstances, the trial court has acquitted the accused respondents by holding that prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the accused respondents 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, this appeal does not deserve to be admitted, therefore, this appeal is dismissed at admission stage.
Let the lower court's record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 11.3.2014/Monika