Back
2020 Supreme(All) 732
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Pathak, JJ.
Bhanu Pratap Singh Yadav - Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Opposite Parties
Criminal Misc. Application U/S 372 CR.P.C (Leave To Appeal) No. - 4 of 2019
Decided On : 22-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Ram Prakash Patel
Point of Law: The court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality. In an appeal against acquittal, this Court will not interfere with an order of acquittal merely because on the evaluation of the evidence, a different plausible view may arise and views taken by the courts below is not correct. In other words, this Court must come to the conclusion that the views taken by the learned courts below, while acquitting, cannot be the views of a reasonable person on the material on record.”
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 372, 313 – Order of Acquittal – Instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the informant/appellant challenging the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Offences against Women), Rampur in Sessions Trial acquitting the accused persons namely, Chhattrapal (respondent no.2) and Rakesh (respondent no.3) for commission of the alleged offence under Section 307 IPC, arising out of Case Crime Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Rampur. –
Finding of the Court:
If the evidence of prosecution is read and considered in totality of surrounding circumstances along with other evidences available on the record, in which the crime is alleged to have been commissioned, it cannot be said that accused persons had attempted to commit homicidal death of informant/appellant and his wife. – Neither depositions of prosecution witnesses inspire confidence of the Court, nor it disclose the true genesis of the crime under Section 307 IPC. Prosecution has failed to prove its accusation beyond all reasonable doubts. – In such a situation of fact, accused persons i.e. respondent nos.2 and 3 are entitled to get benefit of doubt and their innocence could easily be inferred. There is no substantial and compelling reasons to reverse the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. – Learned counsel for the informant/appellant has failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order, which is under challenge in this appeal. – Court find no ground to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by Court below which has decided the matter in favour of respondents-accused persons. –
Result: Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Dinesh Pathak, J.
1. Heard Shri Ram Prakash Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on admission.
2. The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the informant/appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (Offences against Women), Rampur in Sessions Trial No.306 of 2012, acquitting the accused persons namely, Chhattrapal (respondent no.2) and Rakesh (respondent no.3) for commission of the alleged offence under Section 307 IPC, arising out of Case Crime No. 1141 of 2012, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Rampur.
3. As per the version of the First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”), on 12.04.2012 at 4:00 P.M., the informant-Bhanu Pratap Singh Yadav (PW-1) along with his wife Vimla Devi (PW-2) went to Guddu's house at Punjab Nagar, Rampur to know the well being of his mother and son. He left his wife there and went away Vijaeeya to attend reception of the daughter of Operator Bulakhi Ram and to collect the installment from Kamal Singh. Therefrom, he came back to Punjab Nagar, took his wife and gave receipt to Vijay at Wajinagar. Thereafter, his wife asked him to go via his village so that they could meet his mother and to know her well being. At about 7:30 PM, while they were coming comfortably towards the village, he saw two persons standing on the road adjacent to the agricultural plot of Kewal and recognized them as Chhattrapal son of Swaraj and Rakesh son of Chandrapal in the light of his motorcycle's headlight. Two more unknown persons were also standing there at some distance. Chhattrapal shot fire at the informant, due to which his motorcycle tottered down towards the right side in the agricultural plot of Kewal, but the fired bullet hit on the temple region of his wife. In retaliation, the informant, after balancing himself, fired three shots from his service revolver. Thereafter, the accused persons opened indiscriminate firing and fled away towards the forest. The informant saw his wife lying down on the road in unconscious condition. He rang to his family members. Sunil son of Pappu immediately rushed to him and asked as to who had shot fire, then the informant took the name of the aforesaid two accused persons. Sunil told him that he saw Chhattrapal and Rakesh on the culvert while they were running towards forest. On his information to the police by phone, police force reached there and took him and his wife to the hospital through police vehicle and got her admitted. The police left the informant to look after her.
4. On the written report dated 12.04.2012 (Exhibit Ka-1) submitted by Bhanu Pratap Singh Yadav (PW-1), FIR dated 12.04.2012 (Exhibit Ka-7) has been lodged at about 23:40 hours registered as Case Crime No. 1141 of 2012 under Section 307 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Rampur against Chhattrapal (respondent no. 2), Rakesh (respondent no. 3) and also against two unknown persons.
5. On 12.04.2012, the victim (w/o informant) was medically examined at about 8:30 p.m. in the District Hospital, Rampur by Dr. Lalit (PW-3), Medical Officer (EMG), District Hospital, Rampur who had prepared and signed the medical report dated 12.04.2012 (Exhibit Ka-2) showing three injuries on the body of the victim. Dr. Lalit had also submitted supplementary medical report dated 14.04.2012 (Exhibit Ka-3), after considering the X-ray report of the victim. First medical report dated 12.04.2012 and the supplementary medical report dated 14.04.2012 are as follows :
First Medical Report dated 12.04.2012 :
(1) Multiple firearm wound of entry of size ranging from 0.4 cm x 0.4 cm to 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x depth not probed on right side of fact and right side back of head in an area of 13 cm x 4 cm collor of abrasions present oozinal of blood present. KUO advised X-rays.
(2) Fire wounds of entry (two in number) of size 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x depth not probed on dorsal aspect of right forearm and right hand 07 cm a
