Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Hon.Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

(Delivered by Hon. Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.) Challenge in Criminal Appeal No 3682 of 2008 and connected Criminal Appeal No 2487 of 2008 is to the judgment and order dated 11.4.2008 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Room No.20 Allahabad in S.T. No.1154 of 2005, State vs. Ajai Prakash Mishra and others whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded verdict of conviction against appellant Ajai Prakash Mishra under Section 302 and awarded imprisonment for life attended with fine to the tune of Rs.5000/-. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 201 I.P.C. On the contrary, the Government Appeal has been preferred impugning the verdict of acquittal of accused under section 201 IPC The appellant Jaya Mishra was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and she was punished with sentence of imprisonment for life attended with fine to the tune of Rs.5000/-. However, she was acquitted of the charge under Section 201 I.P.C.

The appellants in support of defence, examined Sri Rajendra Singh as D.W.1, Sub Inspector Sri R.K. Bhargava as P.W.2, Sri Brahmanand Srivastava, who was serving in BSNL as D.W.3 and Sri Kaushik Ghoshal an officer in Vediocon as P.W.4, Sri Prem Shanker Maurya, Record Keeper Blood Bank S.R.N. Hospital as D.W.5, Sri Rajeev Singh an officer in B.S.N.L. as D.W.6, Sri Surendra Kumar Srivastava an officer in Reliance Mobile as D.W.7 and Sri Brijesh Kumar Srivastava as D.W.8.

The trial court on appraisal of the entire evidence on record held the appellants guilty of the charges and convicted them under Section 302 I.P.C. However, the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Section 201 I.P.C..

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of the court below, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals. State has filed appeal against acquittal of appellants under Section 201 I.P.C.

Sarvasri Satish Trivedi, and V.P.Srivastava, Senior Advocates and Sri Dileep Gupta, Advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the evidence produced in this case is not sufficient and convincing to warrant the conviction of the appellants. He also argued that the witnesses have given a concocted version which casts severe doubts about truthfulness of the prosecution case. It was also submitted that there is no reliable evidence brought on record to prove that the appellants had any motive to commit murder of the deceased and in the absence of such evidence, the appellants could not be convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v Prithvi Raj reported in 1995 Supp (3) SCC 410, the Apex Court upheld the acquittal of accused considering his conduct in immediately arranging for Jeep and rushing the deceased to the hospital. The Apex Court observed as under:
"It is true , as contended by the learned counsel that the manner of appreciation of the evidence in respect of dying declaration is not altogether sound. But the High Court has rightly held that the immediate conduct of the accused and his parents in rushing the deceased to the hospital immediately by arranging a Jeep is quite consistent with their being innocent." (Emphasis supplied) Learned Government Advocate as well as Sr. counsel Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, appearing for the complainant minced no words and fairly admitted that there is no illegality permeating the order of acquittal of the appellants under section 201 I.P.C. We have closely examined the entire evidence to find out any shred of evidence under section 201 IPC. The Sessions Judge has rightly given verdict acquitting the appellants under section 201 IPC and therefore, Government Appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed.