Court No. - 5
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 221 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Naveen Pandey And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram Nath,J. Hon'ble Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Arunendra Kumar Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State appellant.
Stamp Reporter has reported a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal. We have examined the affidavit filed in support of the Delay Condonation Application and we find that the delay has been satisfactorily explained.
Accordingly delay is condoned.
Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Appeal be allotted regular number.
This appeal under section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the State, assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 29.03.2018, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, District Ghazipur, in Sessions Trial No.224 of 2014 and 26 of 2014, State vs. Navin Pandey and 3 others and State vs. Sita Devi, arising out of Case Crime No.163 of 2014, under sections 498- A/34, 304-B/34 in alternative section 302/34 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Bhanwarkal, District Ghazipur, whereby all the five respondents to this appeal, have been acquitted of all the charges.
In the present case the incident is of 30.01.2014, causing burn injuries to the deceased. A dying-declaration under section 32 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the same day before the Naib Tehsildar (DW-3). After more than a month the victim died on 02.03.2014, and thereafter the First Information Report was registered upon directions issued under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 08.04.2014. In her dying-declaration the victim stated that she caught fire while boiling milk on a Stove and that none of her in-laws had any role to play. Further although the Dying- declaration, was recorded on the same day the informant did not make any complaint about the burn injuries to the police and it is only after more than two months that a complaint was filed before the Magistrate and upon directions issued under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the First Information Report was registered. The prosecution withheld the Nayab Tehsildar, however, he entered the witness box as defence witness and proved the Dying- declaration. The Trial Judge on such facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record had recorded acquittal. The view taken by the Trial Judge was a possible view.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has not been able to show anything on record that the view taken by the Trial Judge was either perverse or suffers from non consideration of any vital material.
In view of the above we do not find any reason to grant leave to appeal.
Accordingly the application for leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 RPS [Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.] [Vikram Nath, J.]