Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1241 of 2015 Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Abhimanyu Singh And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the accused- respondent and perused the lower court record.
2. The instant appeal on being remanded by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10 January 2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2018 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Abhimanyu Singh and others) is being heard on merit.
3. The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6 November 2014 passed by learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Kanpur Dehat, in Sessions Trial No. 475 of 2009 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Abhimanyu Singh and others) connected with Sessions Trial No. 284 of 2011 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dharmendra Singh), acquitting the accused respondents.
4. As per prosecution case, P.W.-1 Rameshwar Singh alleged that his grand son, Jaiveer Singh (deceased), was a driver of accused-respondent no. 1 Abhimanyu Singh. He drove Tata Sumo vehicle. The deceased along with his motorcycle was found lying on the road. The deceased was admitted to a government hospital on 28 December 2007. He further stated that accused-respondent no. 5, Dharmendra Singh on phone informed that Jaiveer Singh was admitted to the hospital. On reaching the hospital, the complainant was informed that the deceased was referred to Hallet Hospital. The deceased was unconscious while he was taken to the hospital where he died. The complaint was entered in the general diary but it is submitted that the FIR was not registered. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 12 February 2008. On the direction of the Court, FIR (Crime Case No. 64 of 2008) came to be registered on 1 May 2008 under Sections 147, 302, 328 IPC. The version of the complainant (P.W.-1) in the complaint was that the deceased was the driver of accused-respondent no. 1, Abhimanyu Singh and was having illicit relationship with his daughter-in-law, which was the basis of dispute and fight between the daughter- in-law and his son (Jaiveer Singh). It was further alleged that accused-respondent no. 1, Abhimanyu Singh and accused- respondent no. 5, Dharmendra Singh borrowed money from the Bank in the name of the deceased, and they were pressurizing the deceased to deposit the amount. It was further alleged that the deceased had come home and had taken Rs. 35,000/- from the complainant to deposit in the bank.
5. It is alleged that accused-respondents, Abhimanyu Singh and Dharmendra Singh conspired along with others and served the deceased alcohol with poison. It was further asserted that P.W.-2-Dharam Singh and Gyan Singh had last seen the deceased along with the accused consuming alcohol at 7:00 pm.
6. The accused-respondents after submission of the charge- sheet were summoned to face trial under Sections 147, 328, 302/34 IPC.
7. The prosecution to prove the charge examined P.W.-1- Rameshwar Singh; P.W.-2-Dharam Singh; P.W.-3-Gyan Singh; P.W.-4-Babu Singh; P.W.-5-Jaipal; P.W.-6- Dr. Jaswant Ratnakar; P.W.-7-Smt. Moola Rani; P.W.-8-Ranveer Singh; P.W.-9-Ram Prakash Yadav Sub Inspector; P.W.-10-Shri Ripudaman Singh Sub Inspector; P.W.-11-Manohar Singh Sub Inspector.
8. The accused-respondents on being confronted with the prosecution evidence in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated.
9. P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-6 are witnesses of fact. P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 during trial have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.W.-1 supported the prosecution version, in his cross-examination he did not support the assertion of having given money to the deceased. Further, he also did not support that the accused- respondents had obtained loan from a bank in the name of the deceased. The prosecution did not produce any documents of the bank in support of the case set up by P.W.-1. P.W.-1 did not furnish any plausible explanation as to why on 28 December 2007 when he had first filed a complaint at the thana, he did not disclose about the illicit relationship of the deceased with the daughter-in-law of the accused-respondent no. 1, Abhimanyu Singh. He further did not disclose that he was informed by P.W.-2 that the deceased was last seen consuming alcohol with the accused-respondent. P.W.-2 claims to be the last seen witness of the deceased consuming alcohol.
In cross-examination he admitted that on the day of the incident i.e. 27 December 2007 he was in his village and not in the village where the deceased was last seen consuming alcohol. Further, P.W.-1, a Head Moharir in police station, is fully aware with the nuances of law but he did not furnish any explanation as to why he did not get his FIR registered on 28 December 2007 though it has been proved by the formal witnesses that the complaint was formally entered in the general diary.
10. The FIR came to be lodged belatedly on 1 May 2008 after five months of the incident. The complaint came to be lodged after receipt of the viscera report. P.W.-6 (medical expert) conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased, the cause of death was uncertain, accordingly, the viscera was preserved. As per medical report, the presence of insecticide and ethyl alcohol was found. Medical expert categorically stated that presence of alcohol was not found in the body of the deceased. The opinion of the medical expert does not support the prosecution version that the deceased was last seen consuming alcohol with the accused. In the circumstances, it is probable that the complaint was the outcome of consultation and after thought.
11. The prosecution has not been able to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the chain of circumstances fail to connect and link the accused-respondents in the commission of the offence.
12. Having due regard to the prosecution evidence and material, we are unable to persuade ourselves to take an opinion different from that taken by the trial court. Accordingly, the leave to appeal application stands rejected.
13. In consequence the government appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 S.Prakash (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Suneet Kumar,J.)