Naresh Kumar Shakya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

This appeal against acquittal u/s 372 Cr.P.C. arises from a judgment of Sessions Judge, Mainpuri dated 22.3.2014, acquitting the accused-respondents Rakesh Kumar Shakya, Subhash Shakya and Ajaipal Shakya, u/s 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C.

The trial court has recorded the acquittal of the accused persons on the grounds that the report that deceased Vipin Kumar has died was made by the village Chaukidar Lalu, resident of Merapur Chhadami on 2.2.2007 at 1.10 p.m. that a dead body of some unknown person was hanging on a mango tree in a garden. The G.D. entry of this report was lodged on 2.2.2007 itself. The informant PW-2 Naresh Kumar Shakya only moved an application before the District Magistrate (Ext. Ka 14) requesting that post-mortem be conducted on the body. He made no other disclosure in that application. However, on 13.2.2007, PW-2 father of deceased had given an application (Ext. Ka-2) in which it is mentioned that his son deceased Vipin Kumar had gone with labourers on 2.2.2007 at 9.00 a.m. and when he did not return home till noon, the informant made a search for him and that Pheru Singh had told him that he had seen the deceased with Ajaypal at about 12.00 noon going towards village Makhanpur. On further search, Damodar Singh told him that at 8.00 p.m., he saw the accused Rakesh Kumar Shakya forcibly taking the deceased Vipin Kumar in a white coloured Jeep. In the jeep the accused Munna Lal Shakya (since dead) and Ajay Pal were sitting. Rakesh Kumar told him that Vipin Kumar was ill.

The trial court has acquitted the accused persons principally on the ground that neither Pheru Singh nor Damodar singh have come forward to support the prosecution case, rather they have been produced as defence witnesses who have denied this allegation. Rather one Mukesh PW-3 was produced but his name was not even mentioned in the FIR. It may be further noted that Mukesh was the cousin brother of informant and even then the evidence of last seen by Mukesh was not mentioned in the application dated 13.2.2007. More significantly, even these disclosure were made to the informant prior to his moving of application before the District Magistrate for post-mortem. The informant stated that this fact was disclosed to him on 2.2.2007 but same was only disclosed on 13.2.2007.

In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order of acquittal passed by trial court are perverse or unreasonable. No ground exist for interfering with the order of acquittal.

The application for leave to appeal is rejected and consequently the appeal is dismissed.