Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.
(By Justice Rakesh Tiwari) We have heard learned learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This appeal is preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 06.06.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, in S.T. No. 74 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Ved Prakash @ Neetu), whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 307 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act in S.T. Nos. 74 of 2013 and 75 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime Nos. 195 of 2012 and 196 of 2012 respectively.
Brief facts culled out from the record are that on 12.11.2012 when the police party headed by S.I. Munendra Singh was on checking duty, he received an information at about 23.00 hours that two miscreants on motorcycle were trying to commit loot. Believing the information, the police party searched each other for any illicit arms and also tried to procure the public witnesses but none showed willingness. The police party met the informer near a school, who pointed the miscreants. On being aware of danger they opened fire at the police party in which Munendra Singh (S.I.) sustained fire-arm injury. One of the miscreants, Ved Prakash alias Neetu was apprehended on the spot and a country made pistol was recovered from his possession. On the basis of recovery and arrest memo, chick FIR was prepared and after completion of investigation, charge- sheets under Sections 307 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act were submitted against the accused-respondent who denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined P.W.1, Inspector Sanjay Vajpayee, P.W.2- Sub-Inspector, Munendra Singh, P.W.3-Constable Ankit Kumar, P.W.-4, Dr. Naveen Kumar, P.W.-5, Sub-Inspector Om Prakash Sirohi and P.W.-6, Constable Clerk Trilok Chand.
On consideration of the facts of the case and evidence, the trial court acquitted the accused-respondent holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, accused-respondent is entitled for acquittal. Aggrieved by said judgment and order, State has filed present appeal.
Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently argued that from the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court it is clear that accused-respondent had made an attempt of committing murder by opening fire upon the police personnel wherein Munendra Singh (S.I.) sustained fire-arm injury, which fact is also supported and corroborated by the medical evidence, but all the authentic, credible, material and plausible evidence proving the guilt of accused was not considered by the trial court in correct prospective while illegally acquitting the accused; that from the evidence of the prosecution involvement of accused in the commission of crime of attempting to commit loot and murder can be safely adduced; that prosecution had fully proved the motive of crime and also disclosed the entire facts leading to the incident, but the trial court by ignoring the material evidence of the prosecution recorded an erroneous finding contrary to the facts acquitting the accused person from the charges under Sections 307 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, which is not justifiable with the proving of guilt of the accused person as such the impugned judgment is perverse, illegal, unjustified and bad in the eyes of law.
From a perusal of the judgment impugned in the appeal, it is apparent that the trial court after elaborate discussion of statements of witnesses as well as statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and consideration of facts and circumstances has come to the conclusion that the narration of facts as stated by the prosecution is highly improbable and unbelievable. The trial court has as a matter of fact noticed that there was no public witness to the recovery of pistol and live and empty cartridges by the police party from the person of the accused and that the weapon alleged to have been used in the occurrence, was also not sent for Forensic Lab to ascertain as to whether actually in working order it was used in the incident. The court further observed that except the police-personnel, there is no other witness to corroborate the prosecution story and the witnesses have also failed to explain as to how they had escaped when they were fired at with an intention to commit their murder. It may also be noticed here that the police party had allegedly sneaked upon the accused persons who did not know that they were surrounded by police as such it is improbable for them to have injured the S.I. Munendra Singh and constable Ankit Kumar. Moreover, if they would have been looting a number of public persons would have come forward to testify against them after they had been caught. The conclusions ascertained at by the trial court cannot be said to be either illegal, perverse or by ignoring material evidence of prosecution on record.
For the reasons stated above and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we affirm the view taken by the court below in the impugned judgment and order. There appears to be no infirmity or illegality in the conclusions drawn by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order and in our opinion it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
The application for leave to appeal is accordingly rejected. As a consequence, appeal also stands dismissed.
Dated:08.10.2014 RCT/-