CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Gulab Singh vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 21 April 2014 · Citation: (2014) 04 AHC CK 0315

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kalimullah Khan, J · Amar Saran, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 147, 148, 149, 308, 323
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Misc. Application for leave to appeal No. Nil of 2014 in Criminal Misc. Application U/S. 372 Cr.P.C. (Leave to Appeal) No.-191 of 2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 366 words
1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the judgment of the Trial Court.

2.

This application for leave to appeal has been filed against a judgment and order dated 29.3.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Chitrakoot in ST No. 107 of 2008 whereby all the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 147, 323/148, 308/149 IPC, PS Karvi, district Chitrakoot.

3.

The prosecution case as mentioned in the FIR was that on 19.11.2007 at about 10 a.m., the appellant-informant Gulab Singh, who was the Secretary of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, was going to his office. At that time five named accused persons and two unknown persons accosted him, they tried to snatch his revolver and one of the accused persons took out Rs. 53,000/- from his pocket. The accused persons belaboured the informant with fists and kicks and accused Leeladhar assaulted him on his head.

4.

The Trial Judge has acquitted the accused-respondents on the grounds that the informant-appellant has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused persons came from different directions and belaboured him. Two unknown persons had assaulted him and one of them may have thrown brickbats or he may have received injury by brickbats or by fall. According to appellant-complainant himself the injury was not dangerous to life and it was simple in nature and that he was convinced that the accused persons had committed the crime. He did not even see whether the named accused persons had participated in the crime or not.

5.

We find that there is a solitary injury on the head of the appellant, the injured. The appellant was not able to see as to who took out money from his pocket. Even otherwise, it was improbable that the accused persons, who belong to his village will take out money from his pocket. No motive has also been mentioned for this crime. Furthermore, PW 2, Satya Narain has turned hostile.

6.

In view of the above, we see no perversity or illegality in the judgment of the acquittal.

7.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.

8.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.