Court No. - 45
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 406 of 2018 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Prakash Kushwaha And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the appellant-State, Sri Utsav, learned counsel for the accused respondents and perused the trial court's judgment on record.
This application has been filed by the appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 31.10.2017, passed in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 29 of 2016, under sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 IPC, Police Station Bargadh, District Chitrakoot by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court (New), Chitrakoot, whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.
This is a case of circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct evidence of the alleged murder. Alleged incident is said to have occurred on 06.05.2016, however, the FIR was lodged on next day i.e. 07.05.2016, after recovery of dead body of deceased Siddharth, by the informant Ram Khiladi, father of deceased. According to the FIR, the son of informant namely Siddharth, aged about 7 years, had gone out to play but he did not return home, search was made for him. During the course of search, Smt. Phool Kali wife of Budhram Maurya informed that she had seen the victim in the company of accused respondent nos. 1 and 2 namely Prakash Kushwaha @ Prakash Maurya and Prabhakar Patel of village Murka taking away the deceased with them. On this, the informant and his family members proceeded to village Murka in search of their son but neither they could find him nor could able to meet accused respondents. On the next day i.e. on 07.05.2016, when the informant was searching for his son, he was told by some person that the dead body of his son was lying inside the Well. On hearing this, the informant went near the Well and saw the dead body of his son in the Well. The informant expressed his strong suspicion against the accused respondents of committing the alleged crime and in order to conceal the dead body, it was thrown inside the Well. It has borne out from the record that the accused respondents having inimical with the informant on account of previous enmity. Record further reveals that Smt. Phool Kali is a close relative of accused respondent Prakash Maurya. She has also claimed to have last seen the victim with the accused.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that despite the fact that Smt. Phool Kali, who was also the relative of deceased, after having seen the deceased in the company of accused respondents, did not inform about it to the informant on 06.05.2016 when the child had disappeared and search was made by the informant. This creates serious suspicion about the credibility of the last seen evidence.
The court, after scanning and analyzing the material evidence on record, has observed that there is no evidence on record to show that any one had seen the accused respondents committing murder of the deceased and further observed that there is material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of fact and further observed that even the place of incident has not been established. The court has further observed that there is no credible circumstantial evidence on record to indicate that the accused respondents after kidnapping the deceased and committing his murder have thrown away the dead body in the Well. It was further observed that the prosecution has also failed to establish the motive and the medical report also does not correlate with the ocular version.
On a careful perusal of the judgment and record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge is perverse or unreasonable. Simply because another view might have been taken of the evidence provides no ground for interfering with the order of acquittal unless the view taken by the trial judge is not a possible view.
The Court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned judgment and order. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. On the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial judge was not a reasonably possible view.
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 :- 27.3.2018 IrfanUddin