Court No. - 47
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 459 of 2013 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Smt. Vinita Urf Geeta And Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-IX,J.
This appeal for acquittal has been filed against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Hamirpur dated 29.10.2012, passed in S.T. No.208 of 2009 (Smt. Vinita @ Geeta and others) arising out of Case Crime No.371 of 2009, under Section 302/34 I.P.C, Police Station Majhgavan, District Hamirpur.
The incident is alleged to have taken place on 22.6.2009, while the FIR was lodged on 30.6.2009 at 22:30 hours by Ramesh Chand Lodhi PW-1, brother of the deceased Gyasi. In the FIR, it has been stated that the deceased Gyasi was married to another lady and after divorcing her, he married to Vinita @ Geeta, thirteen years ago. From their marital relation, two sons and one daughter were born. The previous wife has filed an application for maintenance, which was allowed and the arrears have become to Rs. 30,000/-, which was not deposited by Gyasi, as such, he was sent to jail in July, 2008. He was released from jail on 19.05.2009 and then he came to his house. During that period Gayasi was detained in jail, his wife Vinita @ Geeta developed illicit relation with accused Rameshwar, son of Shyamlal, resident of village Tolla Rawat, P.S. Majhgavan, Balwan @ Bala @ Baladeen, s/o Badri Prasad Lodhi, r/o village Saidpur, P.S. Rath, District Hamirpur and Lotan Lodhi @ Lotan Kavra, s/o Girja Lodhi, r/o village Kurar, P.S. Kharela, District Mahoba. On 22.6.2009, Gyasi went out from his house and, all of a sudden, he returned to his house at 11:00 p.m then he found the accused Rameshwar Lodhi, Balwan @ Bala @ Baladeen and Lotan Lodhi @ Lotan Kavra at his house with Smt. Vinita, on which, he showed his annoyance and tried to raise voice but all the accused grabbed the deceased and forcibly administrated poisonous substance to him. Hearing the sound, the informant and Bharat Singh came on the spot then found that all the four accused were lifting the deceased from the earth and were laying him on the cot. When, they made enquiry from the accused, they informed that he was not feeling well as such medicine was being given to him.
After two hours, Vinita began shouting then the informant and other persons of the Mohalla came on the spot and found Gyasi as dead. When Gyasi caught the accused red handed having illicit relation with his wife Vinita @ Geeta then the accused committed murder of Gyasi.
It may be mentioned that on the information of Vinita that the Gyasi has committed suicide then the police conducted inquest of Gyasi and inquest report (Ext-5) is on record. The postmortem of the dead-body was conducted and postmortem report (Ext-kha-4) is on record, in which, cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. The viscera report (Ext.Ka-11) is on record, in which, phenol was found.
In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined Rameshwar Chand Lodhi (P.W.1), the informant and brother of the deceased Bharat Singh PW-2 claiming to be eye witnesses, constable Moharrir Shekh Maqsood (PW-2), Dr. Rajesh Kumar (P.W-4), S.I. Narendra Kumar (P.W-5), S.I. C.L. Chaudhari (P.W-6) as formal witnesses. The trial court after hearing the parties by the impugned judgment found that there is no eye witness of the incident and the case is based upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are not linked together to prove that the respondents are guilty for committing murder of Gyasi. On his finding, he acquitted the respondents giving benefit of doubt to them, hence, this appeal has been filed.
We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. Although, according to the informant, Rameshwar Chand Lodhi and Bharat Singh (P.W-2), who visited the house of the deceased on the date of incident i.e. on 22.6.2009 at 11.00 hours and found that the accused were lifting the deceased from the earth and lying on the cot and later on they visited the house of the deceased, when the accused Vinita @ Geeta began shouting after his death but the informant remained silent for a period of eight days, which shows that he has no doubt during this period that poison was administrated to the deceased by the accused. In the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext. Ka-4), no external injury was found on the dead body of the deceased. If the poison was administered to him forcibly then being a young man resistance on behalf of deceased was probable and in that proceeding the external injury on his body must have been found. Phenol is a poison having a very bad smell cannot be administered under dilution of any other drink i.e. phenol can be consumed either voluntarily or by force. There is no evidence that the poison was administered by force or directly by the witnesses or under the circumstances the possibility of committing suicide by the deceased cannot be ruled out.
In the circumstances, the order of acquittal does not want interference by this Court. The application for leave to appeal is rejected.
The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2018 m.a.