Court No. - 32
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 364 of 2013 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Jodhan & Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State appellant/applicant and perused the material on record.
This application has been filed by the State appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 31.8.2012, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 84 of 2008 (State of UP Vs. Jodhan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 47 of 2008, under Sections 304A read with Section 34 IPC & Section 3 (1)(X) SC/ST Act, P.S. Madawara, District Lalitpur by the learned Sessions/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lalitpur whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.
A perusal of the record shows that the incident had occurred on 9.1.2008 but the FIR was lodged on 22.1.2009 i.e. after delay of 13 days but no plausible explanation has been given with regard to inordinate delay. P.W. 3, Gajraj Singh and P.W. 4, Shiv Charan, who are said to be the eye-witnesses of the incident, have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. P.W. 2, Savita (wife of the deceased) in her cross- examination has admitted that no dispute had taken place between the accused and the deceased regarding exchange of wheat. It has also come on record that Komal (last seen witness), who is said to have lastly met the deceased and accused on the way of Hansari, has not been produced by the prosecution. It has also come on record that an FIR was lodged by Gariba, P.W. 1 on 9.1.2008, which was entered into GD as Rapat No. 30, stating therein that the deceased while connecting a electric wire from a pole had suffered electrocution as a result of which he died. The court below after scanning the entire material available on record has disbelieved the subsequent version of the P.W. 1, Gariba.
Perusal of the judgement shows that this a case of circumstantial evidence and nobody had seen the incident. It is a well settled law that in the case of circumstantial evidence all the links of events must be completed, so as to form a complete chain. It is also well settled law that, if two views are possible and the trial judge has taken one view, which is reasonable and plausible and appeals to the judicial mind, then the High Court should refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal. Interference with the order of acquittal should only be done when the findings are perverse, illegal and against the material available on record. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the order of acquittal. The impugned judgment and order passed by the court below does not suffer from any infirmity.
The learned AGA has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the court below.
We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 vinay