Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 599 (UTT)

Hamid Hussain v. State Of Uttarakhand

2020-12-31

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2020
JUDGMENT Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant appeal is proposed to be filed against the judgment and order dated 31st March, 2016 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1909 of 2014, Hamid Hussain vs. Daud Hussain and others, by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Haridwar (for short "the case"). By the impugned judgment and order, the private respondents, namely, Munshi Daud Hussain, Amzad, Israr, Zameee and Shahid were acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 325, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. The appellant herein is the complainant. The case is based on a complaint. Complainant seeks leave to file the appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the private respondents as well as learned counsel for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was not informed about that the date fixed in the case by his counsel; it is also argued that charge in the case was framed on the basis of material filed at the stage of Section 200 and 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). The same material could have been considered for convicting the private respondents. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondents would submit that any evidence recorded during the course of inquiry under Sections 200 and 200 of the Code, cannot be considered at the final stage because that evidence is never put to cross-examination and it is not evidence as such under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, it is argued that there is nothing, which requires consideration and the leave should be denied. 5. The case is based on a complaint filed by the appellant under Sections 147, 325, 452 and 506 IPC. After inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, it appears that the private respondents were summoned under Sections 147, 325, 452, 504 and 506 IPC. The private respondents appeared and they were provided copies of the documents, as required. At the stage of Section 244 of the Code, the appellant did not adduce any evidence, whatsoever in the case and in non-prosecution the evidence was closed on 18th November, 2014. Based on the documents, filed by the appellant charges were framed. Although, it may be subject to much dispute as to how the documents were proved? What were those documents? Based on the documents, filed by the appellant charges were framed. Although, it may be subject to much dispute as to how the documents were proved? What were those documents? These all things are not clear from the impugned judgement. The fact remains that no evidence was adduced by the appellant in the case and accordingly finding of acquittal was recorded. There appears to be nothing which requires any consideration. In the nutshell, after framing of the charge no evidence was adduced by the appellant as a complainant. Whatever evidence was considered at the time of framing of charge, was not put to cross-examination. The court had no other option but to acquit the private respondents. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the leave should be declined. 6. The leave to file the appeal is declined. 7. Accordingly, the leave to appeal application no. 135 of 2017 is rejected. The appeal has yet not been admitted. It finds its accordingly. 8. Let a copy of this Judgement be sent to the learned Court below for compliance.