Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 249 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Bablu

2012-01-30

AMAR SARAN, RAMESH SINHA

body2012
Ramesh Sinha, J.;- Heard learned AGA and perused the trial Court judgment and record. 2. This application for leave to appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.7, Shahjahanpur dated 11.01.2011 acquitting the accused respondent Babloo under Section 302/34 and 201 I.P.C.. One other person, namely, Chhotey Lal was also made an accused in this case but his trial was separated as he was found to be a juvenile. 3. The FIR of the incident was lodged on 3.1.2004 at 9.50 A.M. by PW1-Mahendra Pal, brother of the deceased Deen Dayal, alleging that on 2.1.2004, the deceased Deen Dayal had left his home at about 5 P.M. for going to Village-Bharri Basantpur to the flour mill of Shimbhu to bring some rice, but when he did not return, a search was made for the deceased and his dead body was found in the sugarcane field of Balakram. 4. The trial Court acquitted the accused respondent on the ground that only two witness PW2-Shripal and PW5-Arendru Dev are said to have been sitting near the village of occurrence but the deceased was not even with them at that time. One witness PW 4 Sudhir Singh has been examined as a witness before whom the accused respondent Babloo and Chhotey Lal are said to have confessed their crime but it was pointed out that PW4 was not a person of status and there was no reason why the accused persons would have confessed the crime before him for seeking protection from the police. It was therefore observed by the trial Court that the chain of circumstances are insufficient for connecting the accused respondents with the offence. 5. Leaned AGA argued that there are two witnesses who saw the accused sitting near the place of occurrence. There is a witness of extra judicial confession, who is an independent witness and there is no reason for false implication of the accused respondent. 6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial Court acquitting the accused respondent does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. There is no good ground to interfere in the judgment and order of the trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the Application for Leave to Appeal is rejected and the Government Appeal is also dismissed. 8. There is no good ground to interfere in the judgment and order of the trial Court. 7. Accordingly, the Application for Leave to Appeal is rejected and the Government Appeal is also dismissed. 8. We find that this is the third government appeal which has been taken up in succession, and all of which we have been constrained to dismiss. We are pained to note that government appeals against orders of acquittal which are absolutely devoid of merit appear to be routinely filed in this Court without application of mind. We, therefore, summoned the learned Government Advocate. He informs us that now the Government Advocate is not given any discretion nor consulted in the matters as to which government appeals ought to be filed and whether the appeals have any merit, and that they are simply required to file appeals merely on the direction of the State Government. 9. We think that this procedure is completely wrong and due to this a lot of the precious time of this Court is being wasted in hearing these Govt. Appeals and then for passing reasoned judgements for dismissing them, when there is already such a large pendency of Govt. Appeals and appeals by convicted persons in this Court. 10. We therefore, direct the Principal Secretary (Law) and Principal Secretary (Home) UP to modify the procedure and to give a discretion to the learned Government Advocate and or the concerned learned AGA to take a final decision as to whether it would be proper to file the Govt. Appeal in a particular case or not. There must be proper consultation with the learned Government Advocate/AGA and the LR before Government Appeals are filed. 11. A copy of this order may be sent to the Principal Secretary (Law) and Principal Secretary (Home) UP within a week. 12. List on 13.3.2012 for obtaining compliance reports from the Principal Secretary (Law) UP and the Principal Secretary (Home), UP on the Court's recommendation for the new consultation procedure spelled out above.