Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 22 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Ratan Chauhan

2019-01-03

DINESH KUMAR SINGH I, RAMESH SINHA

body2019
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned brief-holder for the State and perused the trial Court judgment and lower court record. 2. The present Govt Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2006 passed by Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.4, Varanasi in S.T. No.632 of 2003 and 77 of 2001 by which the accused-respondents have been acquitted. 3. The prosecution story in brief-is that the FIR was lodged by Ranjeet Chaudhary with an allegation that his son aged about 18 years Jamwant Chaudhary was taken away on 5.7.2000 at 12 noon by Narendra, Sanjeet Chaudhary and Ratan Chauhan for playing cricket and since then, the son of the informant is untraceable. There was dispute between the family of the informant and the accused persons with respect to partition of property since long time. The brother of the informant Sanjeet Chaudhary along with his associates had also threatened the informant for abduction of his son. The informant along with his wife and other persons of his mohalla have seen the accused-respondents taking his son Jamwant along with them. The brother of the informant Sanjeet Chaudhary has threatened that just now his son has been abducted and his daughter would also be abducted. As the delay caused in searching the son of the informant and apprehending some unfortunate incident, he had given an application to the concerned police station for registering the FIR. It was further mentioned in the FIR that previously regarding the missing of his son, an information was given to the concerned police station on 7.6.2000 (which appears to be wrongly mentioned in place of 7.7.2000 as the incident took place on 5.7.2000). 4. On the basis of written report which was lodged, an FIR was registered on 27.7.2000 at 17.40 hours against accused Narendra, Sanjeet Chaudhary and Ratan Chauhan u/s 364 IPC which was marked as Ext.Ka-4. Thereafter charge sheet was submitted against all the three accused persons u/s 364 IPC and charges were framed against accused-respondents by the trial court who denied the prosecution case and claimed their trial. 5. The prosecution in respect of this case has examined seven prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Ranjeet Chaudhary, P.W.2 Saranga Devi, P.W.3 Jamuna Devi, P.W.4 Munni Devi, P.W.5 Jagdish Chaudhary, P.W.6 S.I. Sanjay Kumar Rai and P.W.7 Constable Pramod Kumar Yadav. 6. 5. The prosecution in respect of this case has examined seven prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Ranjeet Chaudhary, P.W.2 Saranga Devi, P.W.3 Jamuna Devi, P.W.4 Munni Devi, P.W.5 Jagdish Chaudhary, P.W.6 S.I. Sanjay Kumar Rai and P.W.7 Constable Pramod Kumar Yadav. 6. In S.T. No.632 of 2003, two witnesses were examined i.e. P.W.2 Saranga Devi and P.W.3 Munni Devi. As both the Sessions trial arise out of the same crime number, they were heard and decided by the trial court by the impugned common judgment. 7. The accused in their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C have denied their prosecution and deposed that the witnesses are falsely deposing against them. The accused Ratan Chauhan stated that he was living as a tenant in the house of the informant prior to one and half year to two years before the incident and has been falsely implicated. The accused Sanjeet Chaudhary has stated before the trial court that on account of property dispute he has been falsely implicated and has not committed any offence. The accused Narendra Chaudhary has stated that he is innocent and because of family dispute and related to the witnesses has been falsely implicated. 8. The trial court after scanning the prosecution evidence on record found that the abductee who is the son of the informant had gone to play the cricket and did not return and FIR was lodged only on account of suspicion after 22 days of the incident against the accused-respondents. Hence the present appeal by the State against the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court. 9. The learned AGA argued that the victim had not been recovered and the trial court misread the evidence on record and acquitted the accused-respondents. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution and decided the case on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witness were disbelieved due to minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Hence, the judgment and order of the trial Court should be set aside. 10. The trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution and decided the case on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witness were disbelieved due to minor contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Hence, the judgment and order of the trial Court should be set aside. 10. After having perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, it transpires that the trial court after taking into account that there has been delay of twenty two days in lodging the present FIR regarding the abduction of the son of the informant found that there was no plausible explanation given by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the FIR of the incident. Moreover in the FIR itself, the informant has stated that a missing report was lodged by him at the concerned police station and he did not name the accused-respondents in the missing report. From the statement of P.W.1 who is the father of the abductee, the trial court found that in the FIR he has stated that the abductee was taken away by the accused-respondents which was seen by him along with his wife and other villagers but during the deposition before the trial court, he has stated that the abductee was taken in his presence as well as his mother which is self contradictory. In this respect from the statement of P.W.2 Saranga Devi who is the mother of the informant, the trial court had found that it was stated by P.W.2 that the day on which her grand-son was found to be untraceable, he had gone to play cricket from the house to Mandir Ghat and she did not see whether he had taken the bat and ball in his hands and she categorically stated that grand-son gone alone from the house. Thus the statement of P.W.1 was belied by the statement of his mother P.W.2 who has stated that the abductee had gone to play cricket. In addition to the statement of P.W.2, as per statement of P.W.5 Jagdish Chaudhary, who happens to be the uncle, has stated that the accused-respondents had not come to take abductee from his house to play cricket. 11. In addition to the statement of P.W.2, as per statement of P.W.5 Jagdish Chaudhary, who happens to be the uncle, has stated that the accused-respondents had not come to take abductee from his house to play cricket. 11. P.W.2 Saranga Devi also deposed before the trial court that his son accused Sanjeet Chaudhary remained in the home for 15 days after the incident which shows the conduct of the accused Sanjeet Chaudhary as he was involved in the incident and he would definitely disappeared as P.W.1 and P.W.4 parents of the abductee have seen him while taking the abductee. The P.W.3 Jamun Devi is the 'Tai' of the abductee is not an eye-witness of the occurrence as it appears from her evidence that P.W.1 father of the abductee had gone to her house in search of the abductee. P.W.4 Munni Devi who is the mother of the abductee claiming to be the witness of taking her son by the accused Sanjeet Chaudhary and other accused on 5.7.2000 for playing the cricket also does not inspire confidence as if she really witnessed the incident, then she did not make any complaint to anyone after his son did not return on the day of incident and kept quiet. Moreover from the statement of P.W.1 Ranjeet Chaudhary who is the husband it appears that he has stated before the trial court that he along with his mother P.W.2 Saranga Devi has seen the abductee being taken by the accused persons, thus the statement of P.W.4 Munni Devi that she has seen the incident creates doubt. Thus the trial court came to conclusion that the accused-respondents had not taken the abductee from his house to play cricket, whereas abductee who has gone to play cricket did not return on the day of the incident. As the accused-respondent Sanjeet Chaudhary is the real brother of the informant Ranjeet Chaudhary and there was property dispute between the two and on account of suspicion the present FIR was lodged against him along with two other accused-persons and the trial court after examining the evidence on record found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-respondents and has acquitted them from the charges. 12. 12. Having considered the totality of the circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court in acquitting the accused respondents does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The learned trial judge was perfectly justified in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 13. The application seeking leave to appeal by this Court and the appeal both are dismissed, accordingly.