Lochan Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Case called out in the revised list.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist is not present to press the presentrevision. Learned A.G.A. is present.

The present revision has been filed against the judgment of acquittalpassed under Sections147, 427, 431, 504 and 506 I.P.C.

It is contended by revisionist in his revision application that the order andjudgment of the court-below is against the evidence on record and the Court has passed the acquittal order in most mechanical manner and fromthe perusal of the order of the learned lower court, case under Sections147, 427, 431, 504 and 506 I.P.C. is made out because the learned lowercourt has failed to express the grounds of acquittal and the judgmentpassed is arbitrary in nature.

Keeping these objections in view, I have gone through the judgmentdelivered by the learned lower court. Learned lower court has discussedthe material points in his judgment. It has been mentioned that accusedBadan Singh has died during trial and hence the criminal proceedingagainst him has abated.

So far as the remaining accused persons are concerned, learned lowercourt has held that at the stage of Section 246 Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W. 1 LochanSingh who was examined up to the stage of Section 244 Code of Criminal Procedure. has notbeen produced for cross-examination and hence his statement underSection 244 Code of Criminal Procedure. becomes irrelevant.

Learned lower court has also held that P.W. 2 Rakesh in his statement u/s 244 Code of Criminal Procedure. has stated that the incident took place at 6:00 p.m. on 13.10.1996 and accused persons Chandra Pal, Badan Singh, Bhudev, Bakhedi Singh, Ashok Kumar, Kaptan Singh came armed with fawada and they cut down the pakka road. When Lochan Singh made cry whereupon Shanti Swaroop, Harpal, Brahma Prakash, Suraj Pal etc. came on the spot. These witnesses have seen the incident and saved Lochan Singh. The accused persons had given abuses to Lochan Singh and also threatened him. In cross-examination he admitted that he is the brother-in-law of Lochan Singh and at the time of incident he was not on the spot but was in his own field. He has also admitted that Lochan Singh and Name Singh are the real brothers and one case has been filed by Name Singh against the accused Lochan Singh is pending in the Court. This witness in his cross-examination u/s 246 Code of Criminal Procedure. has stated that the accused persons had cut down the road near Lochan Singh whereupon the struggle started between the parties. So the presence of this witness on the spot has again become doubtful.

P.W.3 Shanti Swaroop as examination-in-chief has supported the case but in cross he has stated that both the parties were mutually struggling with each-other. No injury was sustained by any one person or either side abusing was going on. This witness has also admitted that he is brother-in-law of Harpal and Harpal is the son of brother of Lochan Singh i.e. Name Singh. Learned lower court has held that because this witness has stated that there was going on free struggle between the parties and abusing was also going on, so learned lower court has held that there are material contradictions in the statements of P.W. 1 complainant and this witness.

Thus after assessing and weighing the evidence of all the witnesses, learned lower court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case that with intention and with the object to cause injury and damage to the complainant, the accused persons has committed this crime and accordingly acquitted the accused persons.

Apparently, the judgment of the learned lower court shows that the evidence of all the witnesses has been vividly discussed and the findings arrived at by the learned lower court do not seem to be perverse. In these circumstances, the revision appears to be not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is accordingly dismissed.