Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 350 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Anil Kishor Pandey @ Guddu

2017-01-25

REKHA DIKSHIT, SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2017
JUDGMENT Heard learned A.G.A. for the State appellant and perused the material on record. This application has been filed by the State appellant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 17.10.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 111 of 2013 (State Vs. Anil Kishore Pandey @ Guddu) arising out of Case Crime No. 437 of 2012, under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Kannauj, District Kannauj by the learned Sessions Judge, Kannauj whereby the accused/respondent has been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above. A perusal of the record shows that the deceased was said to be missing from 29.06.2012 and on 01.07.2012, the missing report was lodged. The dead body was recovered on 04.07.2012 and the panchayatnama as well as the post-mortem was also conducted on the dead body mentioning 'unknown'. Thereafter, the news regarding the recovery of the said dead body was published in the newspaper. On reading the said news item in the newspaper, the wife of the deceased went to the Police Station and identified the said dead body to be of her husband's body. Ultimately, the FIR was lodged on 12.07.2012 against the accused/respondent Anil Kishore Pandey. According to PW3, she had seen her father i.e. the deceased in the company of the accused/respondent Anil Kishore Pandey in a tempo on 02.07.2012. No explanation has been given as to why she remained silent for such a long time and disclosed this fact only on 12.07.2012 when the FIR was lodged. According to the post-mortem report, the death of the deceased is said to have occurred within 4-5 days prior to the post-mortem. As such, according to the doctor, the death must have occurred on 29/30 June, 2012 whereas according to PW3, she had seen her father/deceased in the tempo along with the accused/respondent Anil Kishore Pandey on 02.07.2012. Thus, the statement of PW3 is contrary to the medical evidence. Perusal of the judgment shows that this a case of circumstantial evidence and it is a well settled law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, all the links of events must be completed so as to form a complete chain. Thus, the statement of PW3 is contrary to the medical evidence. Perusal of the judgment shows that this a case of circumstantial evidence and it is a well settled law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, all the links of events must be completed so as to form a complete chain. It is also a well settled law that if two views are possible and the trial Judge has taken a view which is reasonable and plausible and appeals to the judicial mind then the High Court should refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal. Interference with the order of acquittal should only be done when the findings are perverse, illegal and against the material available on the record. The Court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the order of acquittal. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and, consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.