Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1539 (ALL)

RAM PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-07-13

RAMESH SINHA

body2012
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.: Case was called out in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. From the order-sheet of the case, it is apparent that this revision came up as a fresh matter on 29.1.2009 before this Court and it was ordered to be listed after two months. Thereafter it has come up today for admission after a lapse of three and half years but no one is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision in the revised list. Hence, this Court has no other option but to proceed to hear the matter for admission as it cannot be allowed to linger on for an indefinite period. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the judgment and order impugned herein. This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2008 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.9, Muzaffarnagar in Session Trial No. 660 of 2006 by which the trial court has acquitted the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 for offence under Section 364 I.P.C. The prosecution case in brief is that the informant Ram Pal Singh had moved an application under Section 156 ( 3) Cr.P.C. before the C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar with a prayer that the Station Officer concerned be directed to register a First Information Report and investigate the same on the basis of which the learned magistrate appears to have ordered for registration of the F.I.R. The prosecution case as set out by the informant is that his son Pramod aged about 21 years used to live at his sister's place in village Shiv Nagar. The cousin sister of accused Nandu ( Bhanji), namely, Km. Rekha D/o Dharampal resident of village Chandheri used to live there and an illicit relationship between Pramod and Km. Rekha developed. When their family members came to know about the said relationship between the two then the informant Ram Pal Singh brought his son to his village Dudheri and the family members of Km. Rekha took her to their village Chandheri. After two months, in a preplanned manner accused Nandu along with accused Dharampal on the false pretext got a phone call made by Km. Rekha to Pramod calling him to her village Chandheri. On receiving the said call, Pramod left his house for village Chandheri on the same very day. Rekha took her to their village Chandheri. After two months, in a preplanned manner accused Nandu along with accused Dharampal on the false pretext got a phone call made by Km. Rekha to Pramod calling him to her village Chandheri. On receiving the said call, Pramod left his house for village Chandheri on the same very day. While Pramod was going to village Chandheri accused Nandu met him at Mansoorpur Bus Stand and took him on the pretext that he would get him married with Km. Rekha. While Pramod was going with accused Nandu, he was seen by one Sant Lal son of Jagdish and also by one Dharam Singh son of Chotey residents of village Qasba Burhana. The informant after waiting for several days for the return of his son went to village Chandheri to enquire about Pramod where the accused Dharamapal and his family members started abusing the informant who was accompanied with other persons and was further threatened that if he came again, he would be done to death. The informant kept on searching his son but when he could not come to know about his whereabouts, he went to police station Budhana and gave an application in this regard but when no action was taken by the police, he gave an application on 16.7.2005 to the S.S.P. but no F.I.R. was lodged. The informant suspected that his son was abducted by the accused persons and also done to death. From the perusal of the judgment passed by the trial court, two witnesses of fact, namely, P.W.1 Ram Pal, the informant and P.W.2 Dhram Singh who is the witness of last seen was examined by the trial court. The trial court from the evidence of P.W.1, the informant, came to the conclusion that admittedly he is not an eye witness of the incident. The prosecution story set up by this witness that his son Pramod was done to death by the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 in a preplanned manner does not inspire confidence, hence discarded the same. P.W.1 has not stated about the date and time of incident either in the F.I.R. or before the trial court. Moreover P.W.1 has admitted in his cross examination that his son Pramod did not have any mobile nor there was any telephone connection at his house, hence the prosecution story that the deceased was called by Km. P.W.1 has not stated about the date and time of incident either in the F.I.R. or before the trial court. Moreover P.W.1 has admitted in his cross examination that his son Pramod did not have any mobile nor there was any telephone connection at his house, hence the prosecution story that the deceased was called by Km. Rekha by making a call to him to her house at village Chandheri was found false by the trial court. The trial court further found that P.W.1 was out of the village prior to three days of the incident and he returned to the village after two days of the incident which further shows that he was not an eye-witness of the fact that any such phone call was received by Pramod. From the evidence of P.W.1, the trial court found that no reliance can be placed on his testimony to pass order of conviction against the accused. So far as the evidence of P.W.2 Dharam Singh is concerned, the trial court has found that he in his cross examination has stated that he did not know accused Nandu nor identified him in the court. Further he did not see the deceased in the company of accused-Nandu. The other witness of last seen, namely, Sant Lal was not produced by the prosecution nor his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer which further caste doubt about the prosecution case. The present case being of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances does not seems to be complete which may bring home guilt of the accused hence the trial court rightly acquitted the accused of the charge. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity. The view taken by the trial court was a probable view. No interference is called for this Court in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.