Court No. - 71
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2987 of 1983 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Wasiul Hussain And Another Counsel for Appellant :- A.G.A.
Counsel for Respondent :- Mool Bihari Saxena,Ramesh Upadhyaya
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A. on behalf of state and Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
It has been submitted that opposite party on. 1 has already died. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that it was a serious case, wherein the accused caused injuries to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tehsildar and one Jiyauddin.
He has further submitted that it was a case of causing injuries to the Government officials who raided the house of the deceased- accused, Wasiul Hussain, who was the Ex-chairman of the town area and there were some incriminating materials in his house. While conducting the raid, the Government officials were assaulted resulting in lodging the first information report.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 has stated that opposite party no. 2 was implicated only because of being the brother-in-law of main accused, Wasiul Hussain, who has died during the pendency of this appeal.
He has further submitted that the court below has found that the incident alleged never took place and the applicants have been falsely implicated. Opposite party no. 2 was falsely implicated because the Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer tried to remove their shops from the road side and the protest was led by deceased opposite party no. 1 and as counterblast they were implicated in the present case.
It has further been submitted that the court below has recorded finding of fact, after consideration of the material on record that the medical report of the injured was not found to be credible as the medical examination of the injured was carried out in the police station.
After considering the rival submissions, it is clear that the court below has not found the alleged incident to have been proved from the material produced before the court below. The court below has recorded the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged incident by leading cogent evidence, the material evidence of the constable was not led before the court. Doctor also did not supported the version of the prosecution.
In view of the above, the appeal does not merits consideration, the findings of fact recorded by the court below do not appear to suffer from any perversity. The judgment and order of the court below is hereby affirmed.
This government appeal is dismissed.
The opposite party no. 2 is on bail. His sureties are discharged and bond released. He is directed to be set free. The office of the court is directed to communicate the order to court below within the period of two weeks for necessary compliance.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Rohit