Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 583 (ALL)

STATE OF U. P. v. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

2010-02-15

AMAR SARAN, SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT AMAR SARAN and SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI, JJ.-Even though the case is called out in the revised list learned Counsel for the revisionist did not appear. Heard Sri M.C. Joshi learned AGA for the appellant and Sri L.P. Singh and Sri Sameer Garg for the accused respondent and perused the trial Court judgment and evidence of the witnesses. This Government Appeal and connected Criminal Revision have been preferred against the order of acquittal of the respondent Sanjiv Kumar Sharma under sections 323, 325, 394, 307 and 506 IPC passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-17 Bulandshahar dated 28.5.2003. 2. The prosecution case was that on 12.7.1999 at about 9.00 a.m. when the informant Gyan Dev Prajapati who worked as a Fitter in 'Vivid Chern Pvt. Ltd.' Sikandrabad reached the factory gate, he was assaulted by the Manager Sanjiv Kumar Sharma and three others with hockeys. One of the accused persons fired on him with a c9untry made pistol which missed him. On his cries Sanjai and Raj Singh reached the spot. The accused also looted his wrist watch and relieved him of Rs. 65. His report was not taken down by the police of Sikandrabad. Thereafter the injured was medically examined but the report was still not written. On 17.7.1999 the matter was reported to the SSP, Bulandshahar whereupon the case was registered on 21.7.1999 the case Crime No. 281 of 1999 at P.S. Sikandrabad against the accused respondent and three others. 3. The injured was medically examined by P.W.4 Dr. N.P. Singh on 12.7.1999 at about 12.15 p.m. The doctor found seven contusions and abrasions on the injured. The injuries were mainly on the wrist, shoulder, ankle and legs. There was however one simple contusion on the head. For the injury No. 4 which was a contused swelling on the left ankle, X-ray was advised and a fracture was seen. Hence the injury was described as grievous. The other injuries were simple. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.I Gyan Deo informant P.W.2 Sanjai Mati, who have reiterated the version of the incident mentioned in the FIR. 4. It is argued by learned, AGA that the judgment of acquittal was misconceived in the eye of law as Gyan Deo was an injured witness who was medically examined promptly after the incident. 4. It is argued by learned, AGA that the judgment of acquittal was misconceived in the eye of law as Gyan Deo was an injured witness who was medically examined promptly after the incident. Even if the other witness Sanjai Mati is considered as a chance and interested witness, Gyandeo should not have been disbelieved. As the informant was admittedly a Majdoor leader, he was assaulted in connection with labour demands which were being raisind by him. There was no reason for him to have falsely implicated the respondent who was the manager. The delay in registration of the case was not very material as the police did not take down his FIR, hence the injured informant had no option but to approach the SSP and thereafter to lodge the complaint. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant however, argued that a final report was submitted in this case, subsequently a complaint was filed and then the police case and complaint case were combined, , 'under section. 210 Cr.P.C. One other witness who was also named in the FIR was not examined. Sanjai P.W.2, was closely connected with the informant and resided with him and he claims to have been present at the place and time of incident only because he was proceeding to his village Jokhabad. He was thus clearly a chance witness at that spot. No other witness either from the factory or from the adjoining factories of which the injured informant was the branch trade union secretary has come forward to support his version. There was no reason for the informant having assaulted him on the date and time question. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by learned Sessions Judge. There indeed appears no reason for the accused respondent to have attacked the injured at the time, place and manner suggested. No motive has also been suggested for the attack at that time, save some general statements that the injured was a trade union leader who used to raise labour demands. If indeed the injured informant was espousing the cause of the labourers and the incident look place as alleged surely a single labourer of the region would have come forward to support his version. But no one has come forward. If indeed the injured informant was espousing the cause of the labourers and the incident look place as alleged surely a single labourer of the region would have come forward to support his version. But no one has come forward. Rather there appears merit in the suggestion of the defence that as there was a dispute between the two owners of the factory, Suresh Agrawal who had got the respondent the job in the factory, and Hariom Agrawal who had succeeded in ousting Suresh Agarwal. Hence Hariom had utilized the injured who was a trade union leader for targetiing the appellant in order to have been removed from I the job as he appeared to be Suresh's man. Another reason for the false implication of the respondent has also been suggested that the respondent was instrumental in removing the brother of the injured from his job in the factory. 6. There was also no corroboration of this incident from any independent source. As admittedly the prosecution case itself mentions that immediately after the incident the injured did not inform the doctor about the identity of the accused or the ' manner of assault on him. He got his medical examination done personally without obtaining any Majroobi Chitthi, although in this connection learned AGA suggests that as the police were not taking down his report he had no option but to approach the doctor himself for his medical examination. Except the chance and interested witness Sanjai, PW 2 no one else has come forward to support the version of the injured. 7. There is also a suggestion that the injured may have fallen from a bus and received a' fracture in his ankle and the other injuries. This suggestion cannot be ignored as admittedly the so called fire from a country made pistol, did not strike the injured, which may have confirmed the manner of assault alleged, and hence after falling from a bus or receiving the injuries in some other manner, the injured informant might, have decided to involve the accused respondent for the ulterior considerations suggested above, possibly in collusion with Hariom Agarwal. The version about loot of Rs. 65/- and one watch was rightly disbelieved as it was not specified as to who had looted the informant. Moreover the respondent factory manager was not likely to have engaged in this petty loot in the incident. 8. The version about loot of Rs. 65/- and one watch was rightly disbelieved as it was not specified as to who had looted the informant. Moreover the respondent factory manager was not likely to have engaged in this petty loot in the incident. 8. It is well settled that a judgment of acquittal can only be reversed if the judgment of the Trial Court is wholly perverse and unreasonable. Even if two views can be taken of the evidence, no ground is made out for interfering with an order of acquittal. In view of the aforesaid, we find no error in the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused. The Government appeal and Criminal Revision are therefore devoid of force and are hereby dismissed. Appeal & Revision Dismissed.