Court No. - 52
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. - 4727 of 2015 Appellant :- Pankaj Rai Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Nath Rai,Ashok Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai for the appellant.
This appeal has been filed from the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Azamgarh, dated 11.09.2015 passed in S.T. No.397 of 2009 (arising out of Case Crime No.289 of 2009 under Section 302, IPC) and S.T. No.395 of 2009 (arising out of Case Crime No.295 of 2009 under Section 4/25 Arms Act) P.S. Saraimeer, district Azamgarh.
The incident is alleged to have taken place on 27.5.2009 at 11- 00 A.M. The F.I.R. was lodged on the same day by Pankaj Rai (PW-1). In the F.I.R. it has been stated that Pankaj Rai was resident of village Bhadsari, P.S. Mehnagar, district Azamgarh. He was married to Karishma Rai(deceased). Karishma Rai was the only issue of her mother Smt. Jaimala (PW-2). As she was the only issue of her mother, therefore, she used to live with Jaimala Rai at Saraimeer. On 23.5.2009 he came to Saraimeer and was living with his wife. On 27.5.2009 he went to drop his mother-in-law Jaimala Rai at her dispensary at about 11-00 A.M. When he returned at about 2-30 P.M. from dispensary to his house at Mohalla Chak Saraimeer then he found that accused Imran son of Wafa was coming out from inside the house in a hurry. He had found that he was nervous. When he went inside he found that Karishma Rai was lying dead in a pool of blood. One Rayees Ahmad used to come to her mother- in-law's house which was not liked by Imran as Imran himself wanted to come to her mother-in-law's house. Therefore, Imran had committed murder of his wife.
In order to prove the prosecution case the prosecution examined Pankaj Rai (PW-1), Jaimala (PW-2), Rayees Ahmad (PW- 3),Nageena (PW-4), Dr. Surendra Kumar Upadhyay (PW-5) Constable Mahendra Yadav (PW-6), S.I. Shailendra Singh (PW- 7) and S.I. Kameshwar Singh (PW-8). Out of these witnesses, Jaimala (PW-2), Rayees Ahmad (PW-3) and Nageena (PW-4) were declared hostile. The trial court after hearing the parties found that the prosecution version as stated by PW-1 has not been supported by Jaimala Rai (PW-2). On the other hand PW-1 admitted that the deceased had filed a case related to maintenance upon him, which was decided in terms of a compromise and it was agreed that in case terms of compromise was violated by any of the parties then the deceased had a right to initiate recovery of arrears of maintenance. It has been also admitted that the deceased had initiated case against the family members of Pankaj Rai(PW-1) from which it is proved that the deceased had no relation with Pankaj Rai (PW-1). From the circumstantial evidence offence against the accused Imran has not been proved. On this ground judgment of acquittal has been passed.
We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellant. In the F.I.R. the motive for the murder of deceased Karishma Rai was that one Rayees Ahmad used to visit the house of mother-in-law of the informant, namely, Jaimala Rai(PW-2), which was not liked by accused Imran. This fact has been disapproved by Jaimala Rai (PW-2) as well as Rayees Ahmad (Pw-3). On the other hand (PW-1) in his cross examination had admitted filing of the case of maintenance by the deceased against him as well as criminal case against his family members. Thus, it was not proved that the deceased and Pankaj Rai (PW-1) had good relation between them. The motive as alleged by the prosecution had not been proved.
The only evidence remains of Pankaj Rai (PW-1) that he had seen the accused coming out from the house in which dead body of Karishma Rai was found. Pankaj Rai was not found a reliable witness, therefore, on the basis of sole testimony of Pankaj Rai that he had seen the accused coming out from the house immediately after the incident order of conviction cannot be passed. Apart from it, there is no evidence to prove the involvement of the respondents in the present case.
The order of acquittal does not require any interference by this Court. The appeal has no merit and it is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.4.2019 mt