Court No. - 79
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 72 of 2019 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Janeshwar Prasad And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application
This appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been proposed with a delay of 64 days, for which application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed.
Ground given in application, supported with affidavit, seems to be sufficient.
Hence, this application is allowed and thereby delay is condoned.
Order on Leave to Appeal
This appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by State of U.P. with a prayer for leave to file appeal against judgment dated 03.11.2018, by Court No. 5 of Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, passed in Sessions Trial No. 469 of 2012 (State of U.P. vs. Janeshwar Prasad and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 2012, whereby Janeshwar Prasad, Vipin Kumar, and Guddi alias Priyanka have been convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A I.P.C. read with Section 4 D.P. Act, whereas they have been acquitted for offence punishable under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and Section 3 D.P. Act and accused Vikki alias Ankur has been acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302/149 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. Hence, this appeal is proposed regarding judgement of acquittal of Vikki alias Ankur.
Learned A.G.A. argued that first information report was got lodged against Janeshwar Prasad, Vipin Kumar, Vikki alias Ankur and Guddi alias Priyanka for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B in alternate 302/149 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, upon report (Ext.Ka-1) of informant PW-1. Investigation resulted submission of charge sheet. Cognizance was taken. File was committed to court of Sessions. Learned trial Judge after hearing both sides framed charge against each of accused charge sheeted. Prosecution witnesses were examined. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were got recorded. Defence witnesses were examined. After hearing argument, this judgment of conviction for those convicted accused persons with judgment of acquittal for Vikki alias Ankur was passed, whereas same set of evidences were there for each of accused persons and trial Court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it, whereby judgment of acquittal. Hence, this proposed appeal for grant of leave for filing this State appeal against judgment of acquittal for Vikki alias Ankur.
Learned counsel for accused argued that plea of alibi was taken since beginning of the trial with specific assertion that accused Vikki alias Ankur being a teacher in primary school was at departmental training and he was not at his residence on the alleged date of occurrence, rather two days before he was at above training centre and this was put in question to PW-1, who has admitted that Vikki alias Ankur was a government teacher and was at training centre in that period of time, on the basis of which plea of alibi was accepted and Vikki alias Ankur has been acquitted.
Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through impugned judgment, it is apparent that plea of alibi was taken since beginning by Vikki alias Ankur and this was put in cross- examination to prosecution witnesses. Learned trial Judge in para 48 of judgment has specifically mentioned that PW-1 has admitted that Vikki alias Ankur was a teacher at Primary School, Kalsi and two days before the occurrence i.e. since 14.03.2012 to 16.03.2012 he was at training at District Education and Training Centre, Patni, Saharanpur. Certificate of Principal of above training centre (paper no.132Ka/3) was filed on record and this was accepted by trial Court in para 49 of judgment. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kansraj Vs. State of Punjab; 2000 (5) SCC 207 as well as in Manjurai Vs. State of West Bengal; 2015 (89) ACC 956 has propounded that in dowry cases it is very common that each and every family members are being implicated by informant and the Court is to appreciate evidence with utmost conscious for separating chaff from grain. In present case learned trial Judge has mentioned those two precedents of Apex Court as well as precedent of Apex Court in Sher Singh alias Pratapa vs. State of Haryana; 2015 (1) J.Cr.C. 337 (SC), wherein apex court has held that it has become fashion for implicating each and every member of family in dowry cases or in a case of cruelty against bride. The plea of alibi was accepted by trial Court and the same is in accordance with the facts and law placed before it. There was documentary evidence of participation in departmental training of Vikki alias Ankur with acceptance of PW-1 that he was not at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. Moreso, a general allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty with regard to it has been levelled against those accused persons. No specific date of any demand or cruelty with regard to it is against Vikki alias Ankur and learned trial Judge has rightly passed judgment of acquittal regarding Vikki alias Ankur. There is no perversity in it. Hence, there is no ground for grant of leave.
Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected.
Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019 NS