Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1185 (ALL)

Anita v. State Of U. P.

2022-07-28

KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondents 3 to 8 and learned A.G.A. as also perused the record. 2. It is informed at bar that respondent No.2 Vijay has died. 3. Present criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 9.9.2021 passed in f.R. No.119 of 2020 Smt. Anita versus Vijay relating to case crime No.163 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)V of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Madwara, district Lalitpur whereby while accepting the final report, learned Special Judge, SC/ST has rejected the protest petition Paper No.25Ka filed by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the investigating officer has not conducted fare and impartial investigation. Merely in one day, the investigation has been completed and final report has been filed. The deceased has given dying declaration, however, same has not been recorded by the investigating officer. The final report has been submitted in active connivance by the investigating officer with the accused persons. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeal. It has been submitted that the post mortem report clearly shows that the deceased died due to accident. Statement of the doctor has been filed along with the counter affidavit, according to which, the injuries sustained by the deceased were due to accident. Shivraj, the informant on the same day, i.e. on 13.5.2020 gave an application to the police stating that the deceased met an accident while he was on a motorcycle and was under an influence of liquor. 6. Statement of the independent witness Rammupal, eye-witness Nanhebhai are also on record with the counter affidavit which denies the story of the appellant and have categorically stated that it was a case of accident. 7. The informant Shivraj has also given his statement under section 161 CrPC which is also on record along with the counter affidavit. He has also said that the deceased as well as two other persons were heavily drunk and met an accident with a buffalo. All the three were injured. They were taken to government hospital. Doctor also told that they were heavily drunk. Thereafter, they were brought home where the deceased died. He further stated that he gave the information to the police station. All the three were injured. They were taken to government hospital. Doctor also told that they were heavily drunk. Thereafter, they were brought home where the deceased died. He further stated that he gave the information to the police station. Inquest was made and he is the inquest witness. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has also drawn attention of this court towards the report of Revenue Inspector dated 18.6.2020 wherein the wife of the deceased, present appellant applied for Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojna. The report has been submitted in view of the application given by the appellant for claiming the aforesaid compensation showing an accidental death of her husband. 9. He further informed that the appellant has received a sum of Rs.5 lacs as compensation. 10. Perusal of the impugned order and the relevant record shows that the accident took place on 12.5.2020 between 2.00 and 8.00 p.m.. The first information report was lodged on 26.9.2020 after an application under section 156(3) CrPC was given on 1.6.2020. No plausible explanation of delay of 17 days was given by the appellant for lodging the first information report. The application given at the local police station by Shivraj, the informant was on record with the trial court which is numbered as 12ka stating that on 12.5.2020, his brother Shivcharan (deceased) and Vijai Lodi went to take diesel and they met an accident. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to hospital, Madwara where the doctor informed him that he was under influence of wine and will get well and thereafter he brought him to the village where he died. 11. According to the site plan, the deceased died due to accident. According to post mortem report also, the deceased died due to excessive bleeding from the injury in the lungs and liver of the deceased. Statement of the doctor under section 161 CrPC is also on record. The learned court below has perused the medical report of the doctor at Community Health Centre, Madwara dated 12.5.2020, prepared at 9.38p.m., according to which Vijai and Shiv Charan after the accident came to him for treatment which contradicts the statement of the appellant that on 12.5.2020 at 8.00p.m. she along with her brother in law went to see her husband. The claim of the appellant has been found totally contradictory to the material on record of the Special Judge as the brother in law of the appellant himself has stated that the deceased met an accident which corroborates the statement of the doctor and the medical report which also shows that the appellant did not go with the deceased husband to the hospital. The post mortem report also shows that the deceased met an accident as apart from the injuries shown for cause of death, there are six other ante mortem injuries on the shoulder, knee, foot, shin and thigh which shows that it is a case of accident. 12. On due consideration to the argument advanced by the parties' counsel and perusal of the record as also findings recorded by the learned Special Judge, coupled with the fact that the appellant on one hand has filed this appeal against rejection of her protest petition, on the other hand according to the report of the Revenue Officer dated 18.6.2020 she has applied for Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatana Kalyan Yojna and as per statement given by learned counsel for the complainant, she has also received a sum of Rs.5 lacs as compensation in the said Scheme which shows that this is the vain attempt by the appellant/complainant to prosecute the private respondents 3 to 8 for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B I.P.C., 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)V of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and only with a view to get an additional compensation under SC/ST Act by putting altogether not only a different but totally contradictory story. This case is a perfect example of abuse of process of the court, for ulterior monetary gain. The statement of the learned counsel for the complainant that the appellant has received an amount of Rs.5 lacs under the above Welfare Scheme and the pleadings in the counter affidavit have not been rebutted by learned counsel for the appellant. 13. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-which shall be recovered from the appellant within three months from today as arrears of land revenue under intimation to the Registrar General of this Court by the concerned District Magistrate.