State of U.P. vs Balkuttipal and Others

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned judgment and record of the Trial Court.

This Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2011 passed by the Special Judge(D.A.A.) Act Hamirpur in S.T. No. 276 of 2006 ( State Vs. Balkuttipal and others) under Sections 364/120B, 302/120B, 201/120B, 364, 302/34,201,467,468,471 and 420 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 11.6.2006 at about 8.00 p.m. the husband of the informant namely Summi Pal had gone somewhere from his house and thereafter he did not return. The informant Smt. Girja Rani wife of Sunni Pal lodged a Gumshudgi report on 12.6.2006 at the concerned police station. Thereafter, on22.6.2006, a written report was lodged at the police station Majhgaon by Ram Prakash son of Summi Pal in which he has written that on 12.6.2006, his mother Smt. Girja Rani had informed him on phone at Madras where he was working that his father is un-well and he should come immediately. On which Ram Prakash on 14.6.2006 in the after noon came to his house and his mother informed him that on 11.6.2006 at about 8.00 p.m. in the evening one person had come on motor cycle and had taken his father saying that he is nephew of Onkar Lodhi of Navranga and his buffalo is un-well for which Summi Pal has to give some treatment and thereafter, his father did not return and Ram Prakash made a search of his father at his relations place and at nearby areas but when he failed to get the where-abouts of his father, then he received information that some one has taken away his father in order to kill him on the basis ofs the written report of Ram Prakash. A first information report was registered on 22.6.2006 at 8.45 p.m. as case Crime No. 102 of 2006 u/s 364 I.P.C. P.S. Majhgaon.

On 29.6.2006, the bones of the deceased Summipal alongwith his cloths, shoes etc. were recovered by the investigating officer, on the basis of which, the investigating officer converted the case u/s 302/34 read with Section 364 I.P.C.

The trial court acquitted the accused persons on the ground that a wrong information was given by P.W. 1 Smt. Girja Rani to his son Ram Prakash that his father had gone somewhere from his house on 11.6.2006 at 8.00 p.m. and thereafter when P.W. 2 Ram Prakash returned on 14.6.2006 to his house, then P.W.1 told him that his father was taken away by one person who is said to be a nephew of Onkar Lodhi of Navranga on the pretext that his buffalo was un-well and Summipal had to give treatment to her.

The prosecution has not given any explanation regarding the contradictory version given by P.W. 1 to her son P.W. 2 which creates doubt about the prosecution story.Further the trial court found that when P.W. 1 Smt. Girja Rani, knew that nephew of Onkar Lodhi had taken her husband on 11.6.2006 at 8.00 p.m. then why she did not disclose this fact in her Gumshudgi report which she lodged on 12.6.2006. Moreover, the nephew of Onkar Lodhi was also not made an accused, hence, in such a situation different version has been given by the prosecution from time to time. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged about 11 days for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution. The motive suggested by the P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are different as P.W. 1 has has stated that her husband Summipal used to do the work of money lending,whereas, P.W. 2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that before the incident, accused Balkuttipal had taken Rs. 30,000/-from his father, due to which he had a grudge and ill-will against his father and had committed his murder alongwith other accused persons.

The only evidence against the accused persons is of extra judicial confession, which is said to have been made before P.W. 3 Om Singh who is stated that when he was sitting with Kachhi and Ram Babu at his house, then accused persons after 17-18 days had come to him and confessed their guilt before him.

The trial court disbelieved the testimony of P.W. 3 as from the evidence, it came to the conclusion that P.W. 3 Om Singh had good relations with the police and he was a pocket witness of the police. Moreover, the letter of ransom i.e. Ex. Kha-23 and Kha-24 does not mention the amount of money which is alleged to have been demanded by the accused persons and the trial court further found that there is no evidence to show that the ransom letter was written by accused Lotan Lodhi. Moreover, the statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 regarding the letter of ransom has been found to be contradictory to each other, hence, the trial court held that no offence under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C. is disclosed against the accused Lotan Lodhi, Munna Lal and Gariba respective. It was found in the evidence by the trial court that the relationship between the P.W.1 Smt. Girja Rani and accused Munna Lal was highly inimical regarding the some dispute of Will executed with respect to the property of brother of P.W.1 Smt. Girja Rani namely Mangal.

The medical evidence did not support the prosecution story. The testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 was not found to be reliable by the trial court. Regarding the recovery of weapon from accused Balkuttipal, the Trial Court found that no independent witness has come forward to support the alleged recover and moreover Kachhi and Ram Babu who were sitting with P.W.3 Om Singh before whom the examination-in-chief confession is said to have been made by the accused persons, were not produced by the prosecution.

The learned A.G.A. has argued that the Trial Court misread the evidence on record and acquitted accused persons, though there was sufficient evidence on record against them available on record and they have been wrongly acquitted by the Trial Court.

In view of what has been stated above and after considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no perversity in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court as the same does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality or perversity, hence, no interference is called for in the judgment passed by the trial court.

Leave to appeal rejected.

Appeal dismissed.