State of U.P. vs Brajmohan

This application for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment dated 5.3.2009, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sitapur, in Sessions Trial Nos. 781/05, recording acquittal of accused respondent Brij Mohan, who was tried upon charges under Sections 147, 148, 304/149, 324/149, 504 and 506 IPC.

As per prosecution case, on a complaint submitted by one Ram Devi alias Raj Rani on 13.2.2005 Ext. Ka 17 to Superintendent of Police, Sitapur for lodging an F.I.R, a case was registered against the accused respondent. According to her, on 11.2.2005 at about 8 O''Clock when she, accompanied by her husband Raghunath Prasad and her husband''s nephew Chhatrapal, was going from Sidhauli to her house, she was waylaid by five persons near the field of one Dharmu. One of the accused was carrying a gun, the second and third ones country-made pistols, and two others, were carrying Banka and Lathi. The person, who was carrying a gun, fired at her husband''s nephew but he somehow escaped the gun shot. Thereafter, they threw her husband on ground and assaulted him with kicks and fists. The person, who was carrying a Lathi, exhorted the other accused persons to break the legs and hands of informant Ram Devi. She recognized that person by his voice as Brij Mohan, son of Thakurdeen. He caused a Banka blow on her right shoulder, which resulted in some serious injuries. On noise being made, the residents of Bhabhutipur village gathered on the spot. Thereafter, all the accused persons disappeared from the spot. She went to P.S. Sadna to lodge a report, but it was not registered. She went to Community Health Centre, Sidhauli, for medical examination on 14.2.2005. She claimed that accused Brij Mohan was a bad character and his father was making country-made pistols. Finally, crime Nos. 72/05 as aforesaid was registered at P.S. Sadna on 8.2.2005 at 6-35 vide Ext.Ka 11. After investigation was completed, a challan dated 3.3.2005 under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 IPC was laid, which was later cancelled by Additional Superintendent of Police on 24.6.2005.

Later on, on 9.4.2005, Raghunath Prasad submitted a complaint Ext.Ka 1 to Station House Incharge Sadna. In the said report, he mentioned that his wife Ram Devi alias Raj Rani was returning home from Sidhauli on 11.2.2005 at about 8 O''Clock in the evening with his nephew Chhatrapal. When they reached near the field of Dharmu, they were surrounded by accused persons, namely, Suresh, son of Bhabhuti Lodh, Thakudeen, son of Chunnoo Pasi, Brij Mohan, son of Thakurdeen, and Chhatrapal, and caused assaults with Lathi and Banka by the accused, who were also carrying fire-arms. His wife Ram Devi was also assaulted. She was sent for medical examination to Sidhauli, and finally, crime Nos. 72/05 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 504 and 506 IPC was registered. However, later she received medical treatments while staying at home only. She could not recover from the injuries she had received on her head and back and as a result, she died on 8.4.2005 at 8 O''Clock in the evening. This information was given to him by his nephew Chhatrapal. Post-mortem was conducted on 8.4.2005, and in the report, it is noticed that the cause of death was injuries received by the deceased. Thus, a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 and 506 IPC apart from the one u/s 3(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was registered. Finally, after collecting incriminating materials against accused Brij Mohan, a challan was laid on 25.6.2005.

The accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty. He claimed for and was tried upon the charge framed against him. From the prosecution side, as many as ten witnesses were examined. Complainant Raghunath Prasad P.W.1, the husband of deceased, was examined on 10.12.2008. However, after the charges were modified, the prosecution made a statement that it would not lead any evidence, nor would it cross-examine any of the witnesses. Hence, the prosecution evidence was closed. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the charges and alleged false implication due to political rivalry.

P.W.1 Raghunath Prasad, P.W.2 Chhatrapal and P.W.3 Bhagwandeen have tried to lend support to the prosecution case. Dr. Shashi Kant Misra P.W.4 has explained the injuries as noticed by him in the injury report initially. Dr. Anil Kumar P.W.5, Autopsy Surgeon, who conducted the post-mortem, has proved the post-mortem report. Arvind Singh P.W.6 was S.H.O on 9.4.2005 and he has proved the crime number registered pursuant to the lodgement of F.I.R. As per the injury report proved by Dr. Shashi Kant Misra, he has noticed that the injuries seen on the body of deceased were not received on the date of incident. Besides, it is to be noticed that the deceased died after a gap of two months, and further that, there was no evidence to show that the deceased was given a proper medical treatment or that even after having been provided timely medical treatment, she would not have survived. In view of all the aforesaid, the trial court has rightly recorded acquittal of accused. In a catena of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, it has been held that if on appreciation of evidence, two views are possible, the view taken by lower court in the facts and circumstances of the case should be taken as the probable and reasonable view.

Hence, this application for leave to appeal is dismissed.