State of U.P. vs Ajeet Singh and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—This Crl. Appeal has been preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 30.6.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2007 (State of U.P. v. Ajeet Singh and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 393 of 2000, under sections 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, district Bulandshahar. The prosecution story in brief is that on 20.6.2000 complainant Dhanpal Singh son of Sri Sher Singh, resident of Gram Bachauli, Police Station Dehat, District Bulandshahar had lodged a written report against the accused at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar regarding an incident dated 20.6.2000 at about 10.00 AM alleging therein that the complainant is resident of Gram Bachauli, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahar. He had come to the house of brother-in-law namely Subhash son of Mahendra Singh situated near Railway Station, Bulandshahar. Subhash used to work in office for installation of Dish, antennas. On 20.6.2000 about 10.00 AM when the complainant was sitting in the control room of the office the accused persons namely Mukesh, Sant Pal and Ajeet Singh came there armed with fire arms and said, "yeh Dhanpal, Subhash ki badi pairokari karta hai, aaj isey jaan se maar do." They then opened fire with their country made pistol (Katta) with intention to kill the complainant. As a result Ajit, Mukesh and the complainant got injured.

Meanwhile, Subhash and Manoj both sons of Manthan Singh and Jagpal, resident of Gram Jatpura reached at the spot and saw the occurrence. Seeing the witnesses, the accused persons fled away from the spot. The complainant in injured condition was admitted in the District Hospital by Manoj and Subhash, where treatment was started after medical checkup. The Investigation Officer after completing the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondents. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined three witness of facts. PW-1 is Subhash, PW-2 is Dhanpal Singh, PW-3 is Manoj. Apart from that four formal witnesses were also produced by it. PW-4 is Sub-Inspector Sangam Mishra, PW 5 is Dr. R.K. Gupta, PW-6 is Dheerajpal Singh (Retired D.S.P.) and PW-7 is K.P. Singh Tomar, Inspector C.B.C.I.D. Meerut.

The contention of the learned A.G.A is that accused-respondents had attacked with firearms upon the complainant with intention to kill him, due to which he received grievous injuries, but the learned Trial Court overlooked the same while acquitting the accused respondents. It is stated that Trial Court has wrongly recorded findings about variations and contradictions in the statement of witnesses though the said contradictions were very minor which occurred due to lapse of time and slip of memory and that the whole prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. It has further been argued that from the evidence on record, the motive for commission of the offence by the accused-respondent is found proved beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, the Trial Court has wrongly passed the order for acquittal on the basis of wrong appreciation of evidence and on surmises and conjecture. It is lastly argued that undue weight to the evidence of defence has been given by the Trial Court ignoring the prosecution evidences. Hence it has been prayed that the order of acquittal of respondents which is per se illegal, unjustified and bad in the eye of law be quashed.

After hearing the learned A.G.A and on perusal of the judgment we find that the Trial Court has discussed in detail the evidence adduced by the prosecution before it and has rightly come to the conclusion in paragraphs Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the judgment that accused-respondents are entitled for acquittal. Para 38 to 44 reads:-

From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that the presence of the accused person at the place of occurrence is found doubtful. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly given the benefit of doubt and acquittal. In our considered opinion, we find that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in the order in appreciation of the evidence and conclusion arrived at is not based on surmises and conjecture as argued by learned A.G.A. Therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be upheld. The instant government appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.