Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1330 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Satish Chandra @ Chhotey Munna

2014-04-24

AMAR SARAN, KALIMULLAH KHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Amar Saran and Kalimullah Khan,JJ. This government appeal arises out of the judgement of the Addl. Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No.1, Etah dated 4.10.2005 acquitting the accused-respondents under sections 307/34, 323/34 and 504 I.P.C. 2. We have heard learned A.G.A and have perused the trial court's judgement. 3. The prosecution case as disclosed in the FIR lodged by PW-1 informant Dinesh Singh on 31.3.1996 at 11.00 p.m at P.S. Nayagaon was that on account of litigation between this witness and accused-respondent Rakshpal alias Jhalli, at about 8.00 p.m on 31.3.1996 when he was chatting at his door with his brother Suresh Singh and his mother Smt. Chhoti Beti, the accused-respondents Udaibhan alias Chhotey Munna, and Rakshpal alias Jhalli armed with DBBL gun and country made pistol started firing saying that the accused were big litigators ("sale mukdmebaaz bahoot bante ho"). In that incident, pellet injuries were caused to Suresh Singh and Chhoti Beti. One Mahesh, who intervened, also received injuries in the incident. This incident was witnessed by Naresh and Ramesh, brothers of the informant and several other co-villagers (who have not been examined). 4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the informant Dinesh Singh as PW-1, one Narendra Babu Katiyar as PW-2 and Suresh Singh PW-3 as witnesses of facts. 5. In the judgement of acquittal, the trial court has observed that in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove the injury report of the injured Suresh and Smt. Chhoti Beti. The trial judge has further held that only the x-ray reports have been proved by PW-2 Dr. Narendra Babu Katiyar, who x-rayed Suresh Singh , Smt. Chhoti Beti and Mahesh but he was unable to state in his cross examination as to how old were the injuries. So far as the injured Mahesh was concerned, he had received blunt object injuries although only firearms were allegedly used. The informant PW-1 Dinesh Singh therefore deposed contrary to his version in the FIR that Mahesh did not receive any injury. Some other contradictions in the evidence have also been pointed out by the trial judge, as for example in the FIR it was mentioned that Udaibhan was armed with a Rifle but in Court, Dinesh Singh PW-1 has stated that Udaibhan was armed with a country made pistol. Only one other witness other than Dinesh Singh, the injured Suresh Singh has been examined. Only one other witness other than Dinesh Singh, the injured Suresh Singh has been examined. The other two injured witnesses Chhoti Beti and Mahesh were not examined. 6. The incident had taken place on 31.3.1996 at 8.00 p.m. The trial judge has observed in paragraph 13 that the charges were framed after five years on 18.4.2001 and the prosecution was not able to examine all the witnesses in the case after that for four and a half years. Thereafter on 1.7.2005, as all the witnesses were not examined, the trial court has commented adversely on the laches of the prosecution and even recommended action against the prosecution to the District Magistrate, Etah. On 1.9.2005 and on 12.9.2005, the prosecution was again directed to be vigilant and to ensure examination of the witnesses but the prosecution failed to pay heed to the direction of the trial court. Therefore, by order dated 21.9.2005, the trial court closed the prosecution evidence observing that the prosecution had been seeking adjournments on contradictory grounds. 7. Learned A.G.A argued that the case may now be remanded for proving the injury reports and for production of the witnesses. We think that such a course is not open to this court at this stage. It may be noted that in this case, the judgment is dated 4.10.2005 and deliberately or due to negligence this government appeal was got filed on the last date of limitation on 18.1.2006 with the Registry and the result was that the appeal has been lying pending since then for admission in the High Court's office. Now after 8 years, we are considering this government appeal against the acquittal today for admission as the appeal has still not been admitted. We would like to point out that presently some government appeals of the year 1979-80 are still pending i.e. after a period of about 34 years of their admission. As per information obtained from the computer section, there were about 14469 Government Appeals (including 2824 single judge appeals and 11645 D.B. appeals) pending in the High court in March 2014. It may be further noted that if the appeal is admitted at this stage, in the normal course, it will take another 40-50 years for the final disposal of this appeal. It may be further noted that if the appeal is admitted at this stage, in the normal course, it will take another 40-50 years for the final disposal of this appeal. For all these reason this court is not in a position to allow the application for leave to appeal or to admit this government appeal at this stage. Consequently the application for leave to appeal is rejected and the government appeal is also dismissed.