Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 26 (ALL)

State Of U. P. v. Ajai @ Aajesh

2019-01-03

DINESH KUMAR SINGH I, RAMESH SINHA

body2019
ORDER : 1. The present Government appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.08.2006 passed by Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Court No. 4, Eta in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2005 acquitting the respondent from the offence under Sections 302 I.P.C., P.S. Pilua, District Eta. 2. Heard Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR was lodged by the informant Netrapal Singh son of Vijaypal Singh with an allegation that on 09.10.2004 at about 7.00 p.m. in the evening, the brother of the informant namely Hodil Singh @ Chhote had gone on the tubewell to give food to his uncle Megh Singh. As soon as he reached at the tubewell, some unknown miscreants had set ablaze 'bitiya' which was kept near the road side. Hearing the same, Netrapal Singh, brother of Hodil Singh @ Chhote went near to it on which unknown miscreants have shot dead his brother Hodil Singh @ Chhote. On hearing the fire shot Megh Singh raised alarm and went near the 'bitiya' but he could not see anything. The informant along with his family member and some villagers, tried to search but could not find anything. On 10.10.2004 at about 7.00 a.m., when family members of the informant Netrapal Singh had gone to his agricultural field searching for his brother then, at about 20 paces inside the said field of 'bajra', the dead body of Hodil Singh was found lying and on his chest a shot was found bleeding. An FIR was lodged by the informant Netrapal Singh at the police station on the basis of which a written report which was marked as Ex. Ka-1, a chick FIR was registered which was marked as Ex, Ka-9. The FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 233 of 2004 under section 302 IPC against unknown persons which was also endorsed in GD rapat no. 10 at about 08.15 a.m. On the registration of the FIR, the police reached the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased which was marked as Ex. ka-4 and other police papers were also prepared and the dead body was sent for its post mortem. The I.O. prepared the site plan Ex. 10 at about 08.15 a.m. On the registration of the FIR, the police reached the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report of the dead body of the deceased which was marked as Ex. ka-4 and other police papers were also prepared and the dead body was sent for its post mortem. The I.O. prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-3 of the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. He also arrested the accused/respondents Ajay @ Ajesh on 17.11.2004. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 07.01.2005 by C.J.M. Eta. The trial court framed the charges against the accused under section 302 IPC on 28.07.2005 who denied the prosecution case and claimed trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Netrapal Singh, PW2 Vijaypal Singh, PW3 Matadeen, PW4 Dr. V.P. Bansal who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated and the investigation which has been done and the charge-sheet which has been submitted is absolutely incorrect and the witnesses have falsely deposed against the accused respondent. The trial court after examining the prosecution evidence has acquitted the accused/respondent finding no evidence against him and aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present government appeal against the acquittal. 4. It has been argued by learned AGA that acquittal of accused/respondent by the trial court appears to be not justified though there was evidence against him, hence, judgment of the trial court be set aside and the accused/respondent be convicted. 5. After perusal of the lower court record and scanning the evidence led by the prosecution, it transpires that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons by the informant PW1. The only evidence which has been collected against the accused/respondent during the course of investigation on the basis of which, he was put to trial was his extra judicial confession before PW1 Netrapal Singh, brother of the deceased and PW2 Vijaypal who happens to be the father of the deceased. It is stated that after one month six days of the incident, the accused/respondent had made an extra judicial confession before them confessing his guilt. It is stated that after one month six days of the incident, the accused/respondent had made an extra judicial confession before them confessing his guilt. Similarly PW3 Matadeen has also stated that on 13.11.2004, the accused/respondent has also made extra judicial expression before him confessing his guilt with regard to murder of the deceased. No recovery of any incriminating article was made at the pointing out or from the possession of the accused/respondent. The trial court found no cogent evidence against the accused/respondent except the evidence of extra judicial confession without there being any further corroboration of the same by other sufficient evidence hence it has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondent and has recorded the finding of acquittal which appears to be a right one. 6. Having considered the totality of the circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that judgment of trial court does not suffer from any perversity and the view taken by it in acquitting the accused does not seem to be patently unreasonable. As it is well settled law that if the two views are possible then the view taken by the trial court should not normally be interfered with unless otherwise seemed to be highly improbable or perverse. No interference is called for in the judgment and order passed by the trial court acquitting the accused. 7. Leave to appeal is rejected and Government Appeal also stands dismissed.