Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2359 (ALL)

Brijbhan Singh v. State of U. P.

2018-11-19

HARSH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Harsh Kumar, J. 1. The present application has been moved for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.8.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in S.T. No.16 of 2017 (State Vs. Arjun and others), Case Crime No.493 of 2016, acquitting the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the charges of offence under section 306 IPC. 2. Heard Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Arjun and others), Case Crime No.493 of 2016, acquitting the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 from the charges of offence under section 306 IPC. 2. Heard Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant Brijbhan Singh lodged a F.I.R. against respondent nos.2 and 3 under sections 302 and 328 IPC on 26.10.2016 at 5:00 p.m. with the averments that his elder brother Kishun had a dispute with respondent nos.2 and 3, who had stolen wood from his agricultural field, of which his brother had made a complaint at P.S. Rath and higher authorities because of which they were annoyed and used to abuse him every now and then and also demanded Rs.10,000/-, as damages and expenses incurred by them; that on 26.10.2016 at 9:30 a.m. Kishun told him that Arjun, Ram Sahai, Nand Ram met him in the evening of 25.10.2016 in the market and told him that they will return his wood and he may come tomorrow to receive the wood and he should withdraw his complaint, whereafter Kishun left to village Aunta and when he reached near his agricultural filed around Gahra Chauki above three persons Arjun, Ram Sahai and Nand Ram obtained his signatures on blank papers after committing marpeet with him and forcibly administered him poisonous substance which incident was seen by Shankar and Shiv Pal and they informed the appellant at about 11:10 a.m. about lying of Kishun in almost likely to die condition; that the appellant Brijbhan reached the fields and seen Kishun in critical condition and brought him to Government Hospital, Rath where after treatment for sometime he died; that a suicide note was recovered at the time of preparation of inquest report wherein it was contended that accused-persons used to abuse the deceased and demanded Rs.10,000/-and being disturbed he is committing suicide; that due to misconduct of respondent nos.2 and 3, Kishun was compelled to commit suicide and the learned trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in passing the impugned order of acquittal; that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are wrong and perverse and impugned order of acquittal is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned judgment. 5. 4. Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned judgment. 5. Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that as per evidence on record the appellant and deceased were four brothers and the contention that the land was given by deceased to the respondents on Batai by one has been disbelieved by the trial court. It is pertinent to mention that there is no whisper of letting of land by the deceased to the respondent in the F.I.R. and there is nothing on record to show that any complaint was ever made by Kishun, the deceased to police authority or high authorities regarding the alleged theft of wood by the respondents or even any wood was stolen. Moreover in F.I.R., the respondent nos.2 and 3 as well as their father have been assigned with the active role of committing the offence in question, while the father of respondent nos.2 and 3 was not charge sheeted and no application for summoning him under section 319 Cr.P.C. is alleged to have been moved. It is noteworthy that the first informant is residing in Rath outside the village Aunta and the two elder brothers Ram Gopal and Mohar Singh of deceased and first informant, have not been produced. In F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the incident was seen by Shankar and Shiv Pal out of which Shankar P.W.2 has stated that he did not over hear the conversation between the deceased and respondent nos.2 and 3 and their father and subsequently came to know that Kishun has died on account of administering of poisonous substance and Shiv Pal P.W.3 has stated that he was getting it repaired the puncture of his Tractor and when there was noise of quarrel, he did not visit the place of quarrel. He has further stated that respondent nos.2 and 3 and their father were surrounding the deceased and were abusing him and there was scuffle and, thereafter, all the three accused left and he also left and he did not inform the first informant regarding the death of his brother. He has further stated that when Pratap informed him about Kishun on phone, he was in the fields. It is noteworthy that even Pratap has not been produced by the prosecution. He has further stated that when Pratap informed him about Kishun on phone, he was in the fields. It is noteworthy that even Pratap has not been produced by the prosecution. It is also pertinent to mention that post mortem report of the deceased shows one minor abrasion and one contusion over the left elbow of deceased and there is finding of aluminum phosphide poison upon analysis of his viscera. 6. In view of the evidence on record, in this case under section 306 IPC, there is no iota of evidence to show that any abetment was caused by respondent nos.2 and 3 for committing suicide by the deceased. For holding a person guilty under section 306 IPC for causing abetment to commit suicide by someone in view of section 107 of IPC, a person will be said to abet the doing of a thing, if he (i) instigates any person to do that thing, (ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or (iii) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 7. There is no such evidence on record as discussed earlier to show that the respondent nos.2 and 3 ever committed theft of wood from the fields of deceased or deceased made any complaint against them or to any higher authorities or lodged any F.I.R. or to the effect that the accused-persons used to abuse deceased or demanded Rs.10,000/-, as damages or expenses from him. Learned trial court has discussed and analyzed the prosecution evidence in detail and has not committed any mistake and there is no evidence to show that accused-respondents have committed any abetment or instigated or induced the deceased to commit suicide. 8. In view of the above material contradictions, I find that the reasoning given by the learned trial court is cogent and there is no manifest error of fact on law or any perversity, which may require interference by this Court. It is not the case of applicant that the learned trial court failed to consider any evidence, which was there on record. 9. It is not the case of applicant that the learned trial court failed to consider any evidence, which was there on record. 9. Perusal of record shows that the impugned judgment rendered by the trial court is absolutely flawless since he has analyzed the evidence in great detail and appreciated them in correct perspective. The trial court has ascribed cogent reasons for not placing reliance on the untruthful testimony of complainant and her witnesses. In such a fact situation, High Court is not advised under law to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. 10. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme court in the case of K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan, (2008) 1 SCC 258 "When two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the Judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When Judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified". 11. In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to show any legal infirmity, incorrectness or perversity in the findings given in the impugned order of acquittal and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or setting it aside the acquittal order and substituting it with conviction order. The application for leave to file appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 12. The application for leave to file appeal is dismissed accordingly and the appeal also stands dismissed. Dismissed. For order, see order of date passed on application for leave to file appeal.