Court No. - 77
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 6514 of 2007 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Tirath And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- Heard Sri S.K. Tirpathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2- This Government appeal has been preferred (under Section 378 Cr.P.C.) against the judgment and order dated 2.6.2007 passed by the learned Special/ Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddharthnagar in S.T. No. 214 of 2002, under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) 10 of ST./ST Act, Police Station Uska Bazar, District Siddharthnagar whereby opposite party nos.1 to 4, namely, Tirath, Samujha, Ram Achal and Sitaram were acquitted under Sections 452, 323, 325, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) 10 of ST./ST Act.
3- According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. alleging that on 17.6.2001 at 5:00 p.m. they assaulted complainant (Daya Ram). He received two injuries i.e one was contusion and another was complaint of pain.
4- A case was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Police against the opposite party nos. 1 to 4. Upon submission of said charge-sheet, charges were framed against opposite party nos. 1 to 4.
5- Statement of the opposite party nos. 1 to 4 were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the charges levelled against them. No evidence was produced in defence.
6- In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, namely, P.W.1- Dayaram (Complainant), P.W.2- Jairam, P.W.3-Dr. V.P. Singh, P.W.4-Ramkesh Bharti, P.W.5- Surendra Nath Tiwari and P.W.6-Dr. J.P. Singh.
7- After hearing learned counsel for opposite parties and District Government Counsel (Criminal), the impugned judgment was passed. Hence this Government appeal.
8- Learned A.G.A. submitted that the impugned judgment was passed wrongly and is against the evidence on record and law. There is sufficient evidence on record to convict the opposite parties nos. 1 to 4 but they were acquitted by the court below.
9- From perusal of the record, it transpires that case was registered on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and delay caused in lodging the F.I.R. was not properly explained. Injuries found on the body of injured are very simple in nature. P.W.1-Dayaram is a blind person hence he was unable to see that who had caused injury. Four persons were roped in the F.I.R. and only one injury was found on the body of the injured i.e. contusion only. There are major contradictions between the statements of witnesses of fact, namely, P.W.1 and P.W.2 and medical evidence. Prosecution version is not corroborated by the medical evidence. Story as narrated by the prosecution is unnatural and unbelievable. In cross- examination-in-chief of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act were not proved.
10- The incident is of the year 2001; 18 years period have elapsed and no useful purpose would be served after a long time to admit the appeal and issue notices to the opposite party nos.1 to 4, namely, Tirath, Samujha, Ram Achal and Sitaram.
11- The view taken by the court below is a plausible view. Hence no interference is called for in Government Appeal.
12- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment. Application for leave to appeal is rejected and the Government appeal is also dismissed.
13- Stay order, if any, is vacated.
14- Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned along with lower court record immediately for compliance and necessary action.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 OP