Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 177 of 2019 Applicant :- Smt. Parbodevi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Chand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.
Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant- appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application U/s 372/378(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking special leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 1.3.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Court No.6, (D.A.A.), Firozabad in Special Session Trial No. 134 of 2007 (State Vs. Suresh Chandra and others), whereby the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have been acquitted.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that though there is ample reliable evidence that it was accused-opposite party nos.2 to 4 who had taken away the husband of first informant along with them and thereafter he was not to be found. He further submits that there is evidence of PW-1, 2 and 3 who have deposed that opposite party nos. 2 to 4 had taken the husband of first informant along with them and there is nothing to disbelieve their testimonies and the victim has not been traced-out yet. Learned trial judge has committed manifest error of law by not relying on their deposition and has illegally acquitted the accused.
I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal. The trial court has recorded a finding that the husband of PW-1 found missing from 24.4.2005, however, the missing report was lodged by her Jeth on 23.5.2005 in which no accused was nominated. Then more than one year after the incident, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved in which for the first time the prosecution has introduced the version that the accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 4 had taken the victim along with them and thereafter his whereabouts could not be traced. The trial court has also recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 4 have abducted the victim and no reliance can be placed on the last seen evidence introduced belatedly.
I do not find any illegality, impropriety or misreading of evidence on record in the impugned judgment and order of the court below.
The present criminal misc. leave to appeal application is, accordingly, rejected and consequently the criminal appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Vikas