Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1034 (ALL)

STATE OF U P v. LALTA SINGH

2004-05-13

KHEM KARAN, M.A.KHAN

body2004
The above mentioned criminal appeal and the criminal revision are directed against the same judgment and order dated 18-7-1981 (Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1980) by which the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh acquitted all the six respondents of the charges publishable under Sections 147, 323 read with Sections 149, 325 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. On 3-7-1978 at about 1. 30 in the night one Paras Nath Singh lodged FIR with PS Sangramgarh against the respondents and one Chandra Pal Singh, alleging therein that on 2-7-1978 at about 6. 30 p. m. , the accused Mewa Lal assaulted Rudra Pratap Singh and when he accompanied by Rudra Pratap and Heera Lal was going to Police Station to lodge the report at about 7. 30 p. m. , that all the seven accused named in FIR, assaulted with lathis, Rudra Pratap, Heera Lal, Smt. Gangajali, as a result of which they sustained injuries. It was claimed that this incident was also witnessed by Raj Kumar (PW 2), Angad Singh, Salig Ram. It was also alleged by the prosecution that Prasant, wielded danda in self-defence, causing injuries to the accused, Lalta Singh and Chandra Pal Singh. The injuries of Chandra Pal Singh proved to be fatal. 3. It appears undisputed that the accused Lalta Singh, had already lodged cross FIR against Parasnath Singh and others, as early as on 2-7-1978 at 9. 15 p. m. According to it, the accused named therein, assaulted Lalta Singh and Chandra Pal Singh, as a result of which Chandra Pal Singh received fatal injuries. It was said that Parasanath and other were aggressors. 4. Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, Rudra Pratap Singh (PW 1), Raj Kumar (PW 2) were the eye-witnesses. The defence filed few papers. 5. It was said that Parasanath and other were aggressors. 4. Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, Rudra Pratap Singh (PW 1), Raj Kumar (PW 2) were the eye-witnesses. The defence filed few papers. 5. The order of acquittal is based amongst others, on the following grounds : (1) That the prosecution has failed to prove motive; (2) That the FIR does not contain an explanation of the injuries of accused Lalta and Chandra Pal, hence it can be said that the prosecution has suppressed a material fact and has presented a tainted or tailored version; (3) That it is not believable that the accused, who were seven in number, could have been at the receiving end so much so on their side Chandra Pal received fatal injuries; (4) That the defence version was also probable; (5) That it was doubtful, whether Smt. Gangajali received injuries during the course of same occurrence; (6) That oral evidence of PW 1 and 2 was full of material contradictions and so was not worthy of credence. 6. We have heard Sri P. K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the State, Sri Mohd. Abid Ali, the learned Counsel for the respondents and have also perused the record received from the learned Sessions Judge. None has turned up from the side of the revisionist, Rudra Pratap Singh. 7. It is now well settled, after catena decision of the Apex Court (see Dhanna etc. Abid Ali, the learned Counsel for the respondents and have also perused the record received from the learned Sessions Judge. None has turned up from the side of the revisionist, Rudra Pratap Singh. 7. It is now well settled, after catena decision of the Apex Court (see Dhanna etc. v. State of M. P. , 1996 (1) JIC 1084 (SC) : JT 1996 (6) SCC 652, Satendra Pratap and another v. State of U. P. , JT 2003 (1) SC 85; Bhagwan Singh v. State of M. P. , 2002 (2) JIC 881 (SC) : JT 2002 (3) SC 387, Hari Singh Basera v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (2) JIC 651 (SC) : 2002 SCC (Crl) 654, Shamboo v. State of M. P. ; 2002 (2) JIC 833 (SC) : 2002 SCC (Crl) 684; State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, 2003 (2) JIC 737 (SC) : JT 2003 (7) SC 543, Ramesh Babu Lal Poslhi v. State of Gujarat, JT 1996 (6) SC 79; Jaswant v. State of Hariyana, JT 2000 (4) SC 114 and Shivaji Bagode v. State of Maharastra, 1973 (2) SCC 793 , though the powers of this Court in appeal against acquittal, are as wide as in appeal against conviction, but the Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal, unless, the view taken by the Court concerned is found totally absurd or perverse or unless miscarriage of justice appears to have been caused. In other words, if the view taken by the acquitting Court was also possible on the basis of material on record, the appellate Court will not interfere. 8. In revision by a private party, against acquittal, the scope for interference is narrower to the scope in appeal against acquittal. The Apex Court ruled in Aklu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo, AIR 1973 SC 2145 , that in revision against acquittal interference was possible in the following circumstances only : (1) Where the trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the accused. (2) Where the trial Court wrongly set out evidence, which the prosecution wished to produce. (3) Where the appellate Court has wrongly held that the evidence, which was admitted by the trial Court, to be in admissible. (4) Where the material, evidence has been over looked (either) by the trial Court or by the appellate Court. (2) Where the trial Court wrongly set out evidence, which the prosecution wished to produce. (3) Where the appellate Court has wrongly held that the evidence, which was admitted by the trial Court, to be in admissible. (4) Where the material, evidence has been over looked (either) by the trial Court or by the appellate Court. (5) Where the acquittal is based on compounding of the offence, which is invalid under law. 9. The conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge, that on the side of the accused, Lalta Singh and Chandra Pal Singh (deceased) received injuries (as noted in Ext. Kha-4, 5 and Ex. Kha-6) during the course of the same transaction, had not been assailed by the learned Counsel for the State. The same is based on proper evaluation of the evidence on record. Chandra Pal died of the same injuries on the next day. In FIR, Ext. Ka-1, no attempt was made to explain these injuries of the accused and a belated attempt by PW 1 and 2, did not impress the learned Judge. The question is whether it can be said that the learned Sessions Judge took an absurd or perverse view. We think, it is difficult to say so. 10. The learned Sessions Judge said that it was not believable that as many as seven persons going well armed to assault unarmed persons, themselves become victims so much so one of their associates looses his life. The learned Counsel for the State was unable to convince us as to how this reasoning of the learned Judge was perverse or absurd. We think, that view was most reasonable view, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The contradictions found in the evidence of PW 1 and 2 have been highlighted in the judgment. We find no good reasons to take a different view. The contradictions were material one and the same indicated that the two witnesses were not speaking truth as to in what manner the occurrence really took place. A cock and bull story was put before the Court. The learned Sessions Judge was correct in saying that the defence version was also probable. 12. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that presence of Smt. Gangajali was doubtful. A cock and bull story was put before the Court. The learned Sessions Judge was correct in saying that the defence version was also probable. 12. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that presence of Smt. Gangajali was doubtful. Sri P. K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the State has not been able to show as to how this conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge can be said to be faulty. 13. We find no god grounds to interfere with an order of acquittal. 14. In the result, the appeal as well as the revision are dismissed. The respondents are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. 15. Let the record received from the trial Court be sent back to it along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal and revision dismissed. .