Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 7398 of 2006 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Babloo @ Vijendra Pal Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- D.P.S.Chauhan,N.K.Singh
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard Sri Nafees Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
This appeal of acquittal has been filed from the judgement of the Additional Session/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Farrukhabad dated 20.07.2006 passed in S.T. No. 18 of 2003 (State Vs. Babloo @ Vijendra Pal) was acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him.
The incident is alleged to have taken place on 05.11.2002 near about after 3 P.M. and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 06.11.2002 at 5 A.M. In the F.I.R. it has been stated that the daughter of the informant namely, Satyawati aged about 11 years had went to graze the goats on 05.11.2002 at 3 P.M. along with other children of the village. The other children of the village came back to their house near about 5 P.M. but Satyawati did not return to the house then the informant and his family members began to search her towards the Karbala but she could not be searched. When the informant came back in night to his house then his wife informed that their goats were taken away by the accused to his house then the informant went to the house of Babloo @ Vijandra Pal the accused where the goats were found but Babloo @ Vijendra Pal was not there. They were searching the accused as well as the victim in the night then Babloo was found at about 4.00 A.M. towards the Karbala.
When the informant and other persons searching along with him tried to stop Babloo @ Vijendra Pal then he runaway seeing them but he fell down in the culvert thereafter, he was apprehended by the informant and other persons accompanied with him. When he was enquired about the victim then he confessed his guilt and has stated that he has committed rape and murdered the victim Satyawati by strangulation through her Scarf. The dead body was also received on the pointing out of the accused Babloo @ Vijendra Pal.
In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Ram Sanehi PW 1, Phool Singh PW 2, Deepu PW 3, Head Constable Neeraj Kumar Mishra PW 4, S.I. Shyam Kumar Sharma PW 5, Dr. A.K. Gupta PW 6, and Hirdesh Kumar PW 7. Out of these witnesses Ram Sanehi, Phool Singh and Deepu PW nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the witnesses of fact.
In defence the accused examined Parvez Alam Khan DW 1, Dr. Krishan Murari Dwivedi DW 2, Lajja Ram DW 3 and Babu Ram Pal DW 4. All the incriminatory materials were put to the accused he denied the fact and evidence and stated that as the cattles of Ram Sanehi used to damage his crops and he used to made complaint against it as such he has been falsely implicated on suspicion and was badly assaulted by the informant and other persons.
After considering the evidence on record the trial court came to the conclusion that apart from the extra judicial confession there is no evidence on record to connect the accused from the offence. So far as extra judicial confession is concerned, it was made before the informant himself as such it was not liable to be believed. On the body of the accused total seven injuries were found as such inference was also drawn that it was not an voluntarily statement of the accused. Hence this appeal has been filed.
We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellant that Deepu PW 3 admitted that Babloo @ Vijendra Pal came back to his house at 4 P.M. on 05.11.2002 after taking fodder from his field there is no evidence on record that Babloo went to his field even after coming back to his house. On the other hand it has also came in evidence that two persons namely, Lakhan and one other persons were working in the field in that vicinity. This Lakhan and other persons could not be traced that it cannot be said that Babloo @ Vijandra Pal alone was present in the vicinity where the dead body of the victim was found. The presence of Lakhan and other persons also shows that if Babloo @ Vijendra alone was responsible for the offence then they could have give their evidence in this respect. Thus, the doubt that other persons have not committed the offence is still there and has not been removed by the prosecution. If the prosecution story that Babloo @ Vijendra Pal throughout the night remain towards the field and was arrested within 15 paces of the dead body of the victim is accepted then in serological examination report neither sperm nor any blood in the underwear of Babloo @ Vijendra Pal was found. As such this prosecution evidence in this respect is also not intact and creates doubt. Apart from the extra judicial confession before the informant itself, there is no other evidence on the basis of which offence against the respondent is said to be proved. The extra judicial confession has been disbelieved for valid reason inasmuch as seven injuries were found on the body of the accused and it cannot be said to be a voluntarily confession. In the impugned judgement of this Court does not require any interference. The appeal has no merit.
Accordingly, the application for seeking leave to appeal is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Rahul.