Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 395 of 2013 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Kunwar Pal & Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
Heard Additional Government Advocate for the appellant.
This Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.9.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in S.T. No.1122 of 2008(State of U.P./Karan Singh(complainant) vs. Kunwar Pal and others) arising out of Case Crime No.60-A of 2007, under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506, I.P.C. P.S. Jewar, district Gautam Budh Nagar.
The incident is alleged to have taken place on 4.3.2007 at about 3-30 P.M. N.C.R. was lodged on the same day. There was a cross case also in which the accused were also acquitted. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet in the matter. It has been stated in the N.C.R. that on 4.3.2007 the informant Karan Singh and his son Anil were coming to his village after performing Holi festival from Nagla Parohi. On the way Anil plucked a sugarcane from the field of Kunwar Pal, which was objected to by Kunwar Pal and an altercation was ensued between them in which accused Kunwar Pal, Om Prakash, Rajpal and Harswaroop armed with iron rods and lathis assaulted them in which Bani Singh, nephew of the complainant, had received injuries..
In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Anil, son of the informant and eye witness as PW-1, Bani Singh injured witness as PW-2, Karan Singh first informant and eye witness as PW-3 and S.I. Vinod Kumar as PW-4, Dr. Pramod Kumar as PW-5, Dr. Harsha Juneja as PW-6 as well as Constable Clerk Subhash Chandra as formal witnesses.
The trial court after hearing the parties found that since there was a cross case and the dispute started on plucking sugarcane from the field of accused Kunwar Pal as such it is not proved that as to which party was aggressor. In the manner of assault there is material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses inasmuch as Anil (PW-1) had stated that Kunwar Pal caused ballam injury to Bani Singh on his jaw while Bani Singh stated that Raj Pal caused injury through iron rod on his jaw and teeth while Karan Singh (PW-3) stated that Kunwar Pal caused injury through iron rod in which teeth of Bani Singh was broken. Thus the manner of assault was also not proved from the statements of the witnesses. Therefore, they were given benefit of doubt and acquitted by the trial court by the impugned judgment.
The judgment of the trial court is a reasoned judgment and does not require any interference by this Court. The application for leave to appeal is rejected and consequently the appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 mt