State of U.P. vs Vichittra Singh and Others

Heard learned counsel for the State on this application u/s 378(3) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents in Session Trial No.652 of 2008 whereby they have been acquitted after being charged under Sections 302/504 I.P.C. read with Section 3(2)5 S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, vide judgment and order dated 5.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Kheri.

We have gone through the judgment of court below. As it comes out that the incident had taken place on 27.12.2006 at about 8.00 a.m. of which F.I.R. had been lodged on the same day at 11.30 a.m. by one Ram Niwas (P.W.1) that his father Kalideen has been done to death while inflicting sword blow upon his body and on hue and cry raised by the witnesses including P.W.1-Ram Niwas, P.W.2-Vinod Kumar @ Veenu, and P.W.3-Shanti Devi, the accused-persons fled away leaving behind Kalideen dead. Post mortem examination was conducted on the next day, The Doctor found six injuries on the body of the deceased and the bone underneath the injuries was also found to be cut. The Doctor also opined that the injuries could have been caused by a sword.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined Ram Newas-(P.W.1), Vinod Kumar @ Veenu (P.W.2) and Shanti Devi (P.W.3).

Submission of learned counsel for the State is that out of the prosecution witnesses Ram Newas since being son of the deceased, his testimony has been discarded only on the ground that he is an interested witness. The statements of (P.W.2) Vinod Kumar and Shanti Devi (P.W.3) wife of the deceased has been discarded merely on the ground that they are chance witnesses. Further submission is that the entire prosecution story which is supported by medical evidence as well as by the eye witness acoount, has been discarded on flimsy grounds. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the State that the testimony of the three eye witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are related with the deceased though their testimony is to be assessed and evaluated with caution. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the State.

Accordingly leave to appeal is granted.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record.

Let bailable warrant of arrest be issued against the accused-respondents through Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, fixing 8.12.2011 for their attendance before this Court.

List on 8.12.2011.