Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Natthi Lal And 3 Others on 18 October, 2019
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 79 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3874 of 2016 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Natthi Lal And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This proposed appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure with application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed by State of U.P. against judgment of acquittal dated 16.10.2015, passed by Sessions Judge, Hathras, in Sessions Trial No. 423 of 1996 (State of U.P. Vs. Natthi Lal and others), whereby accused Natthi Lal, Girraj Kishore, Vinod Kumar and Sundar Lal have been acquitted of the charge levelled for offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sadabad, District Mathura, presently District Hathras.
Learned A.G.A. argued that there was a cross case, wherein both side have sustained injuries. This case crime number was got registered, wherein informant's brother Mukesh and Anil Kumar were injured. Mukesh Kumar was having one laceration of area 2.5 x 1.5cm x muscle deep over the head, towards right side, at about 6cm from right ear. The margins were irregular. It was with oozing of blood. Other injury was complaint of pain over right forearm. Injured Anil Kumar had sustained one incised wound in area of 1.5 x 2cm x muscle deep over left palm and one injury over middle finger of right hand, having swelling and pain over it, for which it was advised for X-ray. In X-ray it was found to be simple injury, whereas injury no. 1 was of sharp edged weapon and both of those witnesses, who were injured, in their testimony has fully proved case of prosecution. Formal witnesses including I.O. and Medical Officer as well as Constable Clerk, who had got registered the case, have proved case of prosecution, but learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate facts and law placed before him, thereby passed impugned judgment of acquittal, which is a result of perversity. Hence, this application with aforesaid prayer.
Perused the impugned judgment and record.
From the very perusal of impugned judgement and admitted fact by learned A.G.A., it is apparent that it was a cross case and PW-6, who got this case registered, in his testimony has categorically admitted that the shop i.e. place of occurrence, was of accused person and Court has held that accused persons may not be said to be aggressor because they were present at their shop where complainant side went and tried to obstruct thereat, which resulted in a quarrel and subsequently this occurrence. The injury to accused side was not disclosed by informant in his information or in their testimony in examination-in-chief, whereas in cross-examination they admitted that cross case was got registered, wherein accused persons have suffered injuries, for which Medical Officer has given testimony and defence witnesses were examined. The document of cross case have been duly proved and filed on record. The important facts of injuries of opposite side and pendency of cross case was not said by prosecution case. Hence, trial Judge concluded that accused persons were not aggressor. It was the prosecution side, who went on spot and who initiated this proceeding. Hence judgment passed by trial court is in accordance with evidence placed on record. There is no perversity or no failure in appreciation of facts and evidence placed on record.
Accordingly, leave to appeal is rejected.
Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.10.2019 NS