Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ajeet Singh And Another on 8 October, 2014
Bench: Rakesh Tiwari, Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 36 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3816 of 2014 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Ajeet Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi,J.
(Delivered by Hon. Rakesh Tiwari,J ) This Crl. Appeal has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 30.6.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2007( State of U.P. Vs. Ajeet Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2000, under sections 307/34 I.P.C, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 20.6.2000 complainant Dhanpal Singh son of Sri Sher Singh, resident of Gram Bachauli, Police Station Dehat, District Bulandshahar had lodged a written report against the accused at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar regarding an incident dated 20.6.2000 at about 10.00 AM alleging therein that the complainant is resident of Gram Bachauli, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar. He had come to the house of brother-in-law namely Subhash son of Mahendra Singh situated near Railway Station, Bulandshahar. Subhash used to work in office for installation of Dish. antenas On 20.06.2000 about 10.00 AM when the complainant was sitting in the control room of the office the accused persons namely Mukesh, Sant Pal and Ajeet Singh came there armed with fire arms and said, "yeh Dhanpal, Subhash ki badi pairokari karta hai, aaj isey jaan se maar do." They then opened fire with their country made pistol (Katta) with intention to kill the complainant. As a result Ajit, Mukesh and the complainant got injured.
Meanwhile, Subhash and Manoj both sons of Manthan Singh and Jagpal, resident of Gram Jatpura reached at the spot and saw the occurrence. Seeing the witnesses, the accused persons fled away from the spot. The complainant in injured condition was admitted in the District Hospital by Manoj and Subhash, where treatment was started after medical checkup. The Investigation Officer after completing the investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused respondents. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined three witness of facts. PW-1 is Subhash, PW-2 is Dhanpal Singh, PW-3 is Manoj. Apart from that four formal witnesses were also produced by it. PW-4 is Sub Inspector Sangam Mishra, PW 5 is Dr. R.K. Gupta, PW-6 is Dheerajpal Singh (Retired D.S.P.) and PW-7 is K.P. Singh Tomar, Inspector C.B.C.I.D. Meerut.
The contention of the learned A.G.A is that accused respondents had attacked with firearms upon the complainant with intention to kill him, due to which he received grievous injuries, but the learned Trial court overlooked the same while acquitting the accused respondents. It is stated that trial court has wrongly recorded findings about variations and contradictions in the statement of witnesses though the said contradictions were very minor which occurred due to lapse of time and slip of memory and that the whole prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. It has further been argued that from the evidence on record, the motive for commission of the offence by the accused respondent is found proved beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, the trial court has wrongly passed the order for acquittal on the basis of wrong appreciation of evidence and on surmises and conjecture. It is lastly argued that undue weight to the evidence of defence has been given by the trial court ignoring the prosecution evidencs. Hence it has been prayed that the order of acquittal of respondents which is per se illegal, unjustified and bad in the eye of law be quashed.
After hearing the learned A.G.A and on perusal of the judgement we find that the trial court has discussed in detail the evidence adduced by the prosecution before it and has rightly come to the conclusion in paragraphs Nos 38,39,40,41,42,43 and 44 of the judgment that accused-respondents are entitled for acquittal. Para 38 to 44 reads:-
mijksDr rF;ksa ds lUnHkZ esa lk{khx.k }kjk fn;s x;s c;kuksa dk fo'ys"k.k djus ls ;g fuIdIkZ fudyrk gS fd ;fn ?kVukLFky lqHkk"k dk fM'k dUV~ksy :e gksrk rks fuf'pr :i ls [kwu ds fu'kku ih0 MCyw0&4 dks feyrsA ih0MCyw0&4 dks ekSds ij u rks [kwu feyk vkSj u gh ih0MCyw&3 us csM ij fcNh [kwu vkywnk pknj mls fn[kkbZA ;gkWa rd fd /kuiky flag ?kVuk ds le; tks diM+s igus gq, Fks og Hkh foospd dks ugh lkSisa x;sA ?kVuk ds le; /kuiky tks diM+s igus gq, Fkk og diM+s bl ekeys ds ,d egRoiw.kZ lk{; FksA /kuiky dks ftl izdkj dh pksVksa dk vkuk fpfdRlh; fjiksVZ esa vafdr gS mlls fuf'pr :i ls /kuiky ds diM+ksa esa Hkh fNnz gqvk gksxkA ih0MCyw0&1 rFkk ih0MCyw0&3 us u rks og diMs+ foospd dks lkSis tks og pqVSy /kuiky dks vLirky ys tkr le; igus gq, Fks vkSj u gh /kuiky ds mu diM+ksa] dks foospd dks fn;k tks /kuiky ?kVuk ds le; igus gq, FksA ,0vkbZ0vkj0 2004 ¼lwizhe dksVZ½ i`"B la[;k-1080 LVsV vkWQ jktLFkku cuke rju flag rFkk vU; ds ekeys esa e`rd dks xksyh yxus ds ckn mlds [kwu fudy jgk FkkA p{kqn'khZ lk{kh tks e`rd ds lkFk Fks mUgksaus ;g dgk fd og pqVSy dks vius dU/kksa ij ys x;sA lk{khx.k ds diM+ksa ij dksbZ [kwu ds /kCcs ugha ik;s x;sA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us lk{khx.k dh ?kVuk ds le; ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkfr dks lUnsgkLin ik;kA ?kVukLFky ij cqysV ;k NjsZk dk uk feyuk ;k fM'k d.V~ksy :e dh nhokjksa ij xksfy;ksa ds fu'kkuksa dk u feyuk vkSj ih0MCyw0&1 yxk;r ih0MCyw0&3 diM+ksa ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ fuf'pr lk{; dk i=koyh ij miyC/k u gksuk& vfHk;kstu dFkkud dh ?kVuk dks slUnsg ds ?ksjs esa ykdj [kM+k dj nsrk gSA ih0MCyw0&5 us fjiksVZ ugha vkbZA pksV dh xgjkbZ ugha ukih xbZ] bl dkj.k dksbZ vkaxu MSet Fkk ;k ugha eSa ugh crk ldrkA fcuk ,Dljs ds pksVksa dh izd`fr ugha crk ldRkk** vfHk;kstu dFkkud es s?kVuk fnukad 20-06-2000--------------------------------
fjiksVZ@ ,Dljs IysV miyC/k ugha gS vkSj u gh ,Dljs fjiksVZ ,oa ,Dljs IysV dks ih0MCyw0&5 dks fn[kk;k x;k] D;ksfd ih0MCyw&5 us vius c;kuks es LiIV :i ls dgk gS fd^^ esjs lkeus dksbZ Hkh ,Dljs fjiksVZ ugh vkbZA** ih0MCyw0&5 us pqVSy /kuiky flag dk fpfdRlh; ijh{k.k fnukad 20-06-2000 dks le; izkr% 10-40 cts fd;k FkkA fnukad 20-06-2000 ds ckn ih0MCyw0&5 dks ,Dljs fjiksVZ D;ksa vkSj fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ugha fn[kkbZ xbZ\ vkSj fdu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa foospdksa us ,Dljs fjiksVZ ,oa ,Dljs IysV dks foospuk ds nkSjku vius dCts esa ugh fy;k\ ;g vfHk;kstu i{k Li"V djus esa iw.kZr% vlQy jgk gSA vfHk;kstu dFkkud esa crk;k x;k gS fd rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k us /kuiky ds mij dV~Vksa ls Qk;j fd;s] ysfdu foospdksa us vfHk;qDrx.k dh fu'kkunsgh ij dksbZ reUpk cjken gh ugha fd;kA vfHk;kstu dFkkud esa crk;k x;k gS fd vfHk;qDrx.k vius&vius gkFkksa esa dV~Vs ysdj lqHkk"k ds fM'k d.V~ksy :e ds xsV ij vk;s vkSj mUgksusa dgk fd ;g /kuiky lqHkk"k dh cM+h iSjoh djrk gS] vkt bls tku ls ekj nksA ;g dgrs gq, rhuksa vfHk;qDrx.k us /kuiky ij tku ls ekjus dh uh;r ls dV~Vks ls Qk;j fd;sA U;k;ky; mijksDr fo'ys"k.k esa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWp pqdk gS fd ih0MCyw0&1 yxk;r ih0MCyw0&3 vkil esa lxs lEcU/kh gS] ftudk vkijkf/kd bfrgkl gS rFkk mudh vfHk;qDrx.k ls iwoZ ls jaft'k pyh vk jgh FkhA xokgksa dh mijksDr i`"BHkwfe ds vkyksd esa tks ?kVuk LFky ,oa ?kVuk dkfjr djus dk gsrqd vfHk;kstu dFkkud esa crk;k x;k gS] mldks U;k;ky; fo'oluh; ugha ikrk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k us vius cpko es lsokfuc`Rr fujh{kd lh0 ch0 lh0 vkbZ0 Mh0 y[kum nhukukFk feJk dks Mh0 MCyw&1 ds :i es 'kiFk ij ijhf{kr djk;k gS A Mh0 MCyw0&1 dk dFku gS fd mUgksus Hkh bl ekeys dh foospuk dh Fkh] ysfdu Mh0MCyw0&1 }kjk dh x;h foospuk ls laECkfU/kr dsl Mk;jh ds dksbZ ipsZ i=koyh ij miyC/k ugh gS A Mh0 MCyw0&1 us Hkh bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ekStwnk dsl Mk;jh ess esjs }kjk fd;k fd;s x;s ipZs 'kfey ugh gS vkSj u gh ekeys dh foospuk mlds ]}kjk fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkns'k i=koyh ij gS A mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ks es U;k;ky; bl fuIdiZ ij igqprk gS fd Mh0 MCyw0&1 }kjk fn;s x;s c;kuks ls vfHk;qDrx.k dks dksbZ ykHk ugh feyrk gS A vkfHk;qDrx.k us vius cpko es izrki flg dks Mh0 MCyw&2 ds :i es 'kiFk ij ijhf{kr djk;k gS A Mh0 MCyw&2 ds c;ku ?kVuk ls lEcfU/kr ugh gS A vr% Mh0 MCyw&2 }kjk fn;s x;s c;kuks ls Hkh vfHk;qDrx.k dks dksbZ ykHk ugh feyrk gS U;k;ky; mijksDr lIiw.kZ fo'ysi.k ds vk/kkj ij bl fuIdiZ ij igqprk gS fd ih0 MCyw&1 yxk;r ih0 MCyw&3 vkil es lxs lEcU/kh gS ftudk vkijkf/kd bfrgkl gS vkSj mudh vfHk;qDrx.k ls ?kVuk ds iwoZ ls jaft'k pyh vk jgh FkhA vr% vfHk;qDrx.k dks >wwBk Qlk;s tkus dh lEHkkouk ls bdkj ugh fd;k tk ldrk AvfHk;kstu i{k }kjk izLrqr ekSf[kd lk{; fpfdRlh; lk{; ls lefFkZr ugh gS A vfHk;sktu i{k ?kVuk ,oa ?kVukLFky dks ;qDr&;qDrd laUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa lQy ugh gks ldk gSA ih0 MCyw&1 rFkk ih0 MCyw&3 dh ?kVuk ds le; ?kVukLFky ij mifLFkfr lUnsgkLin gS A vfHk;sktu dFkkud esa ftl LFky ij ftl izdkj dh ?kVuk dk ?kfVr gksuk crk;k x;k gS ml LFky ij ml izdkj dh ?kVuk dks ;qDr&;qDrd lUnsg ls ijs lkfcr djus esa vfHk;kstu i{k iw.kZr% vlQy jgk gSA From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the presence of the accused person at the place of occurrence is found doubtful. Hence, the trial court has rightly given the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
In our considered opinion, we find that the trial court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in the order in appreciation of the evidence and conclusion arrived at is not based on surmises and conjecture as argued by learned A.G.A. Therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be upheld. The instant government appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 8.10.2014 G.S