Court No. - 51
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 241 of 2020 Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Samay Singh Saini And Another Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA and perused the trial court record with assistance of learned counsel.
2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 2162 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Samay Singh) arsing from Case Crime No. 314 of 2012 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Hafizpur, District-Hapur, whereby accused- respondents namely, Samay Singh Saini and Omveer have been acquitted.
3. As per prosecution case, it is stated that the elder brother of complainant and his mother Bhagwan Daie resided in the house at tubewell outside of the village. Some unknown persons cut the throat of his mother consequently she died. The brother Samay Singh who was present in the village went to see his mother, but found the dead body of his mother lying on the cot, thereafter, he informed the complainant and family members.
4. The report was lodged on 27.7.2012. The investigation was completed by the Investigating Officer I.O. and charge sheet was submitted against the accused. The case was committed on 13.12.2012 to the Sessions Court, thereafter, charge were framed. The accused denied the charge and pleaded for trial. The trial was conducted by adducing documentary evidence and the prosecutrix witnesses viz. Roopa (P.W.-1), Kailash (P.W.-2), Jagdish (P.W.-3), Dr. Ramesh Chandra (P.W.-4), Kishan Pal Singh (P.W.-5), Madan (P.W.-6), S.I. Surendra Singh (P.W.-7) and I.R. Khan (P.W.-8). The accused-
appellants were confronted with prosecution evidence under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty, contending that they were falsely implicated in the case.
5. The trial court upon examining the evidence on record and considering the oral testimony was of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly, the accused were acquitted. Hence, the present appeal.
6. Roopa (P.W.-1) the son of the deceased and Kailash (P.W.-2) the son of the deceased were examined and they did not support the prosecution case, consequently, they were declared hostile. Jagdish Singh (P.W.-3), Kishanpal Singh (P.W.-5) and Madan (P.W.-6) belonging to the village of the deceased also did not supported the prosecution case. Dr. Ramesh Chandra (P.W.-4) found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :
Injury No.1:- IW 10 x 5 cm. on left side of the neck, due to which all the main blood vessels of the neck were cut.
Injury No.2:- IW 5 x 1 cm. on neck.
Injury No.3:- IW 1 x 1 cm. a bit on the chin on left side.
Injury No.4:- IW 1 x 1 cm. a bit on the chin on left side.
7. In his opinion the cause of death was due to excessive bleeding. He opined that sharp weapon was employed to cut the throat of the deceased.
8. Inspector, I.R. Khan (P.W.-8) supported the case of the prosecution. In cross examination P.W.-8 admitted that on the statements of Ram Kishan, Smt. Kashmiri, Jagdeep and Karan the name of the accused- respondents surfaced but he further stated that the accused persons were not present at the place of occurrence. The I.O. further admitted that constable Pramod Bharti and another constables were not mentioned as witness in the charge sheet. He admitted that due to mistake he could not make them witness.
9. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused respondents. The witness of fact and independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.
10. We are unable to persuade ourselves in taking a different opinion than that of the trial court.
11. The prayer for leave to appeal is consequently, refused. The application seeking leave to appeal is rejected.
12. The appeal, in consequence, stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Md Faisal (Brij Raj Singh, J.) (Suneet Kumar, J.) Digitally signed by MOHD FAISAL Date: 2022.03.15 16:36:28 IST Reason:
Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad