Court No. - 32
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 6556 of 2016 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Pramod Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 17.9.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopshahar , Bulandshahar acquitting the accused-respondent under section 304 I.P.C. in S.T. No. 724 of 2013, State Vs.
Pramod Kumar, arising out of case crime no. 129 of 2013, P.S. Anoopshahar District Bulandshahar.
We have heard learned counsel for the State appellant and perused the trial court's judgment and record.
The trial court after scanning the entire evidence recorded a finding that there is no credible and convincing evidence available on record to prove the case beyond shadow of doubt and testimony of the witnesses were not trustworthy. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 12.5.2013 at 11.30 P.M. and F.I.R. was lodged on 13.5.2013 at 4.30 A.M. by one Sharad Kumar (brother of the deceased Harish). As per F.I.R. version the deceased, who had gone to installed tents sustained fire arm injury accidentally while firing was made in the air as part of marriage celebration by some unknown persons. While he was being taken to the hospital for medical aid, he succumbed to injury. The record reveals that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. and it was lodged against unknown persons. Later on, on the basis of the statements of the witnesses Malkhan Singh and Latoori Singh, his name came into light and charge sheet was submitted against him. The court below has further observed that the witness latoori was set up as witness just to fill up the lacuna of the case. The trial court has further observed that the allegation of recovery of alleged country made pistol from the possession of the applicant is also worthy of not much credence. The court below has also discussed at length the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. The trial court after scanning the entire evidence recorded a finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The veracity of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses was found gravely suspected and the participation of all the accused person was also found highly doubtful. Having opined thus, the benefit of doubt was accorded to the accused and the prosecution story was disbelieved. Learned A.G.A also failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the findings so recorded by the court below. The motive assigned to the accused is too weak, and in fact it appears that there is no direct or indirect enmity of the accused with the deceased, except some quarrel took place prior to the incident between the applicant and deceased. There was no cogent and convincing reason to believe that deceased would dare to commit murder of the deceased on such trivial issue. According to the prosecution version, a number of persons were on the spot at the time of commission of the alleged incident, but except one witness , no other independent witness of the locality was produced in support of the prosecution story. The court below has also observed that the investigation made by the I.O. was highly defective and does not inspire confidence. Thus, the court below appears to have rightly acquitted the accused respondent of the charges levelled against him.
Thus, 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. 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 MLK