Allahabad High Court
Ram Narayan Agrahari vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 October, 2018
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?A.F.R. Court No. - 29 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 227 of 2006 Revisionist :- Ram Narayan Agrahari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sushil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I. By means of this criminal revision, the correctness of judgment and order dated 8.3.2006 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC-4, Court No.13, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No.55 of 2005; State of U.P. Vs. Sukhdeo Singh & another connected with Sessions Trial No.55-A of 2005 arising out of Crime No.70 of 2001 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 & 436 IPC and Sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Haliyapur, District Sultanpur has been impeached whereby the learned trial court has acquitted respondents no.2 & 3 from the aforesaid charges.
It has been informed at the Bar that respondent no.2-Sukh Deo Singh had died during pendency of this criminal revision, therefore, this criminal revision is abated against respondent no.2.
Further, this revision has yet not been admitted.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist being the informant of the Case Crime No.70 of 2001, Police Station Haliyapur, District Sultanpur lodged first information report stating therein that on 12.5.2001 at about 10:30 AM in the morning, Sukh Deo Singh and Shakti Singh, respondents no.2 & 3/ accused, came to his house and assaulted by Lathi to the complainant and his brother Tulsi Ram and also lobbed the hand-grenade with intention to kill the informant and his brother Tulsi Ram and had also set his house on fire. The first information report further alleges that Sukh Deo Singh had beaten the mother of the complainant ten days prior to the incidence in question.
After registering the FIR, the investigating officer completed the investigation after collecting the evidence and submitted charge sheet in the court, upon which the learned trial court had taken cognizance vide order dated 17.4.2004 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 19.4.2004. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial.
On behalf of prosecution, the revisionist/complainant appeared as PW-1, his injured brother Tulsi Ram appeared as PW-2, one Jamuna Prasad appeared as PW-3, Investigating Officer Radhey Shyam and Head Constable Heera Lal appeared as PWs-4 & 5. Dr. G.P. Shukla appeared as PW-6 to prove the injury report.
Learned trial court after examining the testimony of all the witnesses and perusing the relevant records including the injury report found that the allegations of the FIR were not corroborating with the evidence on records inasmuch as, as per allegation of the FIR, the accused persons assaulted the victims by Lathi and lobbed the hand grenade with intention to kill the informant and his brother and also tried to set his house on fire, but the victims had not sustained any serious injury, but they were only claiming pain on their body. Further, there was no injury of the hand grenade nor any mark of injury, which might have caused by the hand grenade. Further, the allegation of setting the house on fire could also not be corroborated and as per the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the said allegation could not be established and therefore, learned trial court found that the offence under Section 436 IPC (mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.) was not made out. The learned trial court also found that the allegation of lobbing the hand grenade did not appear to be prima facie made out inasmuch as neither the contents of used hand grenade was properly preserved nor any exercise to defuse the live hand grenade was carried out. Therefore, as per learned trial court, ingredients of Sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act did not make out and the accused persons should be entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Likewise, the allegation of Sections 307 IPC could not be corroborated inasmuch as no serious injury, which could result the death of the victims, had been sustained and as per the injury report, superficial injuries were found on the body of the victims. Learned trial court found that even allegation of the FIR and subsequent prosecution story did not have any direct nexus. Accordingly, the learned trial court vide acquittal order dated 8.3.2006 acquitted accused Sukh Deo Singh and Shakti Singh from the charges levelled against them extending them benefit of doubt.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted with vehemence that even as per report of the Doctor, some injuries had caused on the body of the victims and those injuries had been sustained on account of assault by the accused persons, but the prosecution could not establish the case before the learned trial court beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, the accused persons have been given benefit of doubt vide acquittal order dated 8.3.2006. He has further submitted that as per Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C."), the victims are liable to get compensation from the State Government, more precisely from the District Legal Services Authority and the victims of this case may be granted compensation as per the aforesaid provision. Section 357-A Cr.P.C. is being reproduced herein below:-
"[357-A. Victim compensation scheme.-- (1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.
(4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation.
(5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months.
(6) The State of the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer-in-charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit.]"
I have perused the acquittal order dated 8.3.2006 and material on record. Careful perusal thereof reveals that there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the acquittal order dated 8.3.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/ FTC-4, Court No.13, Sultanpur inasmuch as while passing the aforesaid order, the learned trial court has considered each and every facts and circumstances of the issue in question in detail and examined the testimony of the witnesses and documents etc. carefully.
Accordingly, this criminal revision is devoid of merits and therefore, it is hereby dismissed.
Before parting with, I would like to consider the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist in respect of award of compensation in the light of provisions of Section 357-A Cr.P.C.
Sub-section (4) of Section 357-A Cr.P.C. provides that even if in a case where trial could not take place, victim or his dependent may be entitled for compensation. Sub-section (5) of Section 357-A Cr.P.C. says that if any application under Sub-section (4) of Section 357-A Cr.P.C. is moved by the victim/his dependent, the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry, award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within a period of two months. In this case the prosecution could not establish the offence beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore on account of failure on the part of the State instrumentality the accused persons have been acquitted getting benefit of doubt, but the fact remains that victims in this case have sustained injuries and they should be compensated for that.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid provision, I am of the view that since the accused persons have been acquitted for the reason that the allegations against them could not be proved/established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts and the victims had sustained injuries on their body as per the injury report, therefore, the victims of this case are permitted to make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority under Section 357-A (4) Cr.P.C. alongwith certified copy of this order for getting award of compensation within a period of two months from today and the competent authority concerned of the aforesaid body shall make enquiry in the issue in question and would conclude the same within a period of two months under Section 357-A (5) Cr.P.C. thereafter and if the authority concerned finds that this is a fit case for award of compensation in the light of provisions of Section 357-A Cr.P.C., the victims shall be awarded appropriate compensation strictly in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date the enquiry is completed. Suffice to observe that the aforesaid entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of producing certified copy of this order alongwith application to seek compensation in the light of provision of Section 357-A Cr.P.C.
Let the lower court record be remitted back within a period of one month from today along with copy of this order for its compliance.
Order Date :- 10.10.2018 RBS/-
[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]