Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 121 (ALL)

Muqimuddin v. State of U. P.

2017-01-10

VIJAY LAXMI

body2017
JUDGMENT Dr. Vijay Laxmi,J. Challenge in this criminal revision is to the impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2015 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.-1, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal No.-65 of 2013, Muqumuddin Vs. Mujeeb Ali and another confirming the judgment and order dated 24.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Maigstrate, Pratapgarh in Complaint Case No.-2164 of 2002 by which the accused Mujeeb Ali and Anees Ahmad were acquitted from the charges under Sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. Being aggrieved this criminal revision has been preferred by Muqimuddin, complainant against the said orders. 2. The accused Saifuddin died during the pendency of the proceedings and the case was abated against him vide order dated 15.10.2011. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the revisionist/complainant is that he was the resident of Village Barai, Police Station Kunda District Pratapgarh. The accused Mujeeb Ali and Anees Ahmad and Saifuddin were hardened criminals, who were having old enmity with the complainant. On the date of incident, when the complainant was present in his house, the accused reached on the door of his house and started abusing him and when asked not to do so, they gave him beatings with fists and slap. Ved Prakash Tewari, Ram Pyare and other villagers reached at the spot on his cry, who saw the incident and on account of their interference the accused left the place threatening him to kill. The report was lodged on the police station concerned where only N.C.R. No.-24/99 under Sections 323/504 I.P.C. was registered where complete details were not written. The complainant got himself medically examined on the next day in Primary Health Centre, Gonda, since the Doctor was not present on that date. 4. The complainant was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witness Ved Prakash P.W.-2 was examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of their statements the accused Mujeeb Ali , Anees Ahmad and Saifuddin were summoned under Sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. 5. The complainant examined himself as P.W.-1 and Zahiruddin as P.W.-2 under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The charges were framed against the accused Mujeeb Ali and Anees Ahmad under Sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. The accused denied from the charges. The complainant examined himself as P.W.-1 as eye witness under Section 246 Cr.P.C. and Dr. M.M.Singh was examined as P.W.-2. The complainant examined himself as P.W.-1 and Zahiruddin as P.W.-2 under Section 244 Cr.P.C. The charges were framed against the accused Mujeeb Ali and Anees Ahmad under Sections 323/504/506 I.P.C. The accused denied from the charges. The complainant examined himself as P.W.-1 as eye witness under Section 246 Cr.P.C. and Dr. M.M.Singh was examined as P.W.-2. The statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where they stated that they were falsely implicated in this case due to old enmity. Mujeeb Ali stated that he was working in the firm of Anees. Muqimuddin was also employee of Anees. Anees filed case of cheating against Muqimuddin in which he was witness for Anees and thus he was falsely implicated in the present case. Anees Ahmad stated that the complainant was working in his firm and the case of cheating was filed by him against the complainant in which he was convicted and thus he was falsely implicated by the complainant in this case. Several other cases were also filed by the complainant against him in which he was acquitted. 6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the accused were acquitted despite sufficient evidence available on record, vide impugned judgment and order. It is also submitted that Zahiruddin P.W.-2 could not be produced during evidence under Section 246 Cr.P.C., since he was not be traceable. The application was moved by the revisionist before the trial court on 03.07.2013 to produce one witness Nathu Ram in evidence which was rejected without any justification. The accused were liable to be convicted. 7. Per contra, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the revisionist/complainant produced himself and Zahiruddin as witness under Section 244 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which, charges were framed against the accused. Zahiruddin was not produced at the stage of Section 246 Cr.P.C. Thus the evidence of Zahirudeen could not be read in evidence. One application was moved by the revisionist before the trial court on 03.07.2013 for producing the witness Nathu Ram who was not named in the F.I.R. Thus, the application was rejected and this order was not challenged and became final. The revisionist/ complainant was medically examined for injuries allegedly caused to him during the alleged incident. The medical examination report is annexed as Annexure No.-5-A, which was proved by Dr. M.M.Singh as Exhibit-Ka-1. The revisionist/ complainant was medically examined for injuries allegedly caused to him during the alleged incident. The medical examination report is annexed as Annexure No.-5-A, which was proved by Dr. M.M.Singh as Exhibit-Ka-1. According to this report no external or internal injuries were found on the body of the revisionist/ complainant, but complaint of pain was disclosed by the complainant on the back side of the neck and on the left side of the face. However, during cross examination the revisionist/ complainant stated that he suffered from pain in his chest due to the injuries caused to him by accused. Thus, there was contradiction in ocular evidence of the complainant and the injury report. No independent witnesses was produced by him despite the fact that their names were noted in the F.I.R. without giving any sufficient reasons. The complainant did not specify the roles of the three accused in causing injuries, nor he specified the words which were used by accused for abusing him. The statement given by the complainant is full of infirmities and contradiction which is not supported by medical evidence. The complainant stated that Ved Prakash, Ram Pyare and seven other villagers reached on spot but none of them were produced. It was a case of no evidence. It is also argued that there was no sufficient ground to turn down the concurrent findings of the two courts below and the revision was liable to be dismissed. 8. It is further argued that the incident allegedly took place on the door of the house of the revisionist/ complainant but Zahiruddin P.W.-2 eye witness stated at the stage of Section 144 Cr.P.C. that he was not aware about location of the house of the complainant. Thus from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the complainant was not able to prove the charges against the accused for want of sufficient evidence and the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 9. I have perused the material on record. 10. There are two judgments of both the Courts below where the accused-respondents were acquitted. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The question which now arises is whether all these findings of facts arrived at by the two courts below should be set aside. 9. I have perused the material on record. 10. There are two judgments of both the Courts below where the accused-respondents were acquitted. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court. The question which now arises is whether all these findings of facts arrived at by the two courts below should be set aside. The learned Advocate appearing for the State has repeatedly canvassed before me the argument that the judgment of the appellate Court is full of convincing details and that the judgment should not be set aside. I have been impressed by this argument. Indeed, in this case the facts, circumstances and the background are sufficiently truth revealing and where both the trial and the appellate Courts have concurrently arrived at the truth not perfunctorily but by a process of well-grounded reasonings. 11. In the opinion of this Court contentions of revisionist cannot be accepted on the ground that there is little scope under the revisional jurisdiction to upset the finding of the facts especially when there is no illegality, impropriety and perversity in the conclusions of the court below. In exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, it will be beyond its power and jurisdiction to re-assess the evidence. Appraisal of the evidence is not permissible in revision. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Putthumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, MANU/SC/0100/1999 : AIR 1999 SC 981 , has held that the High Court while hearing revisions does not work as a appellate court and will not re-appreciate the evidence, unless some glaring feature is pointed out which may show that injustice has been done. 12. In the instant case, I do not think that it would be just and proper for me to interfere with the finding of fact unnecessarily while exercising my powers in revisional jurisdiction. It is found that the judgment of acquittal by the Courts below is without any error, therefore the judgment of acquittal is hereby confirmed. 13. This revision stands dismissed.