Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3575 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Satya Prakash Alias Satto

2014-12-02

OM PRAKASH VII, RAKESH TIWARI

body2014
JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari and Om Prakash-VII,JJ. This Government Appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, District Aligarh in Sessions Trial No.702 of 2009 and 703 of 2009 (State of U.P. Vs. Satya Prakash alias Satto) relating to Case Crime No.35 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC and Case Crime No.79 of 2009 under Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Khair, District Aligarh whereby the respondent has been acquitted for the charges against him. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is that the complainant gave a written report on 25.1.2009 at P.S. Khair that on 19.1.2009, his nephew Arun Kumar had gone to his uncle's place and on 23.1.2009 at 8: 00 a.m. he started to come back to his home, but he did not reach home. Thereafter, on 24.1.2009, he met with his uncle's daughter and told her that he is going to his uncle's village Balampur. He was seen on his motorcycle with a person at 6: 00 p.m. On 25.1.2009 at about 10: 00 it was informed that Arun Kumar was shot dead and the dead body was lying near the canal. The complainant and the villagers went to the spot where they found the dead body of the deceased. On the basis of information given by the complainant, case was registered against the unknown accused and investigation was started. 3. After completing the investigation, charge-sheets were submitted and cases were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial Court framed charges and on denial by the accused-persons, prosecution to prove its case, examined P.W.1 Tinku, P.W.2 Jitendra Singh, P.W.3 Sachin Kumar, P.W.4 Bhoop Singh, P.W.5 Shakoor Khan, P.W.6 Dori Lal, P.W.7 Ombir, P.W.8 Rampal, P.W.9 Constable Badan Singh, P.W.10 Dr. Jagmohan Sharma, P.W.11 Vishambhar Singh, P.W.12 S.I. Munshi Lal Verma, P.W.13 Ratanveer, P.W.14 Preeti and P.W.15 Chandrashekhar Singh, Inspector Incharge and P.W.16 S.I. Maharaj Singh. After closing of the prosecution evidence, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused was recorded. Trial Court, after hearing the parties, acquitted the respondent-accused as above. 4. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and reached on a wrong and erroneous conclusion acquitting the accused-respondent. Trial Court, after hearing the parties, acquitted the respondent-accused as above. 4. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and reached on a wrong and erroneous conclusion acquitting the accused-respondent. Chain of the circumstantial evidence was fully established by the prosecution evidence, but the learned trial Court ignoring the evidence passed the illegal and unjustified impugned order. Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 5. We have considered the submission raised by learned A.G.A. and also gone through the entire record. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is evident that prosecution case purely rests on the circumstantial evidence. None has seen to anyone committing the death of the deceased. It is also evident from the impugned judgment and order that all the witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution story. It is also not established by the prosecution evidence that such recovered country made pistol has been used in committing the present offence. Recovery itself is not supported with the evidence of the independent witnesses as the witnesses of recovery have clearly stated before the trial Court that they have signed on blank paper. Trial Court? has observed that such article has been recovered from the place, which is accessible to the public generally, therefore, placing of reliance on such recovery is not safe. 6. When all the witnesses examined regarding last seen have not supported this fact and recovery is from a place which is accessible to the public generally, none has seen to the deceased with the accused-respondent at the relevant time, therefore, view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse, illegal or erroneous. No other view can be formed from the evidence discussed in the impugned judgment and order. 7. On a careful perusal of the evidence on record, we have come to the conclusion that the evidence has been properly analyzed by the trial court and the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Addl. Sessions Judge does not require any interference by this Court. 8. There is no merit in the Appeal and it is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.