Mahendra Pratap Singh vs State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1755

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNEET KUMAR, BRIJ RAJ SINGH, JJ.
Mahendra Pratap Singh - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal U/S 372 CR.P.C. No. 5293 of 2011
Decided On : 15-11-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : G.P. Dikshit.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 307 - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of corroborative evidence, doubts in testimonies regarding delay in lodging FIR, and absence of serious injuries on the complainant. The court ruled that two reasonable views existed, one favoring acquittal, thus upholding the trial court's decision. (Paras 12, 20, 21)

(B) Presumption of innocence - The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, reinforced by acquittal. An appellate court must only interfere if the trial court's findings are perverse or illegal, which was not established in this case. (Paras 13, 23)

Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by a complainant against acquittal in a trial for multiple IPC sections stemming from an incident on 5.10.1998 where he claimed assault by several individuals. The trial court found inconsistencies in witness statements and concluded the prosecution had failed to establish a strong case.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the FIR was not lodged promptly, there were no serious injuries as per medical evidence, and that the complainant was likely the aggressor, thus the accused were acquitted.

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the complainant's assertions of assault and whether the delay in FIR impacted the prosecution's case.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court determined that the trial court's conclusions were justifiable based on the evidence presented, as multiple reasonable interpretations of the facts existed, hence upholding the acquittal.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. court hears appeal for admission. (Para 1 , 2)
2. factual background of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. medical evidence and its implications. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. trial court's rationale for acquittal. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. principles regarding appeal against acquittal. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
6. court dismisses the appeal. (Para 24 , 25)

ORDER :

(Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Heard on admission.

2. The present Appeal has been filed by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 06.07.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ist Auraiya in Sessions Trial No. 500 of 2000 ( State Vs. Umesh and others ) arising out of Case Crime No. 328 A/1998, under Sections 323 /34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C., Police Station - Bidhuna, District - Auraiya.

3. Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 9.10.1998 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah with a complaint that he was coming from his field on 5.10.1998 at 5.00 p.m. Sri Umesh Singh and Shiv Mangal Singh sons of Varnam Singh armed with knife, Aniruddha Singh son of Varnam Singh armed with Lathi and Indrabhan Singh son of Varnam Singh armed with country made pistol came in front of his house. Indrabhan exhorted that he should be killed today as he is contesting many cases. Indrabhan Singh who was armed with country made pistol fired at him and he escaped. In the meantime, Umesh Singh, Shiv Mangal Singh and Aniruddha Singh who were armed with knife and Lathi started assaulting the Mahendra Pratap Singh due to which he received serious injuries. On hearing the noise, father of applicant Raghunandan Singh, brother Satya Narayan Singh, Gyan Singh son of Mahendra Pratap Singh and others reached to the spot and saw the incident. The accused ran away from the spot by threatening the applicant to kill him. The applicant could not go to the police station, however, he had informed the Superintendent of Police through telegram on 6.10.1998. He got himself examined by the Doctor and x-ray was done at Sadar Hospital, Etawah. No action was taken against the accused, therefore, he filed the application before the Court for necessary action. The case was registered at police station Kotwali Bidhuna vide chik F.I.R. The case was investigated by the Investigating Officer who prepared the site plan and thereafter he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4. On the basis of charge sheet filed against the accused persons they were summoned by the concerned Court under Sections 323 /34, 324/34, 325/34, 504, 506, 307/34 I.P.C. Accused persons denied the charges. The trial was conducted by adducing the evidence i.e. P.W.-1 Mahendra Pratap Singh, P.W.-2 Raghunandan Singh, P.W.-3 Nahar Singh, P.W.-4 Parmanand Kaler, P.W.-5 Dr. P.C. Pandey and P.W.-6 Tarak Nath.

5. The accused were afforded opportunity under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons denied all the charges and the incident. The accused also said that the false and fabricated doctor's report has been obtained and due to enmity the accused persons have been implicated. It is further pleaded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that due to cross case lodged in Case Crime No. 328 of 1998 against the complainant he has implicated the accused. The trial court after adducing the evidence on record and affording opportunity of hearing to accused as well as prosecution side recorded the finding in the following manner:

6. P.W.-1 Mahendra Pratap Singh had submitted in his chief examination that he was coming to his house from the field on 5.10.1998 at 5.00 p.m. Sri Umesh Singh, Shiv Mangal Singh, Aniruddha and Nawab and Indrabhan Singh came in front of his house, Shiv Mangal Singh and Umesh Singh were armed with knife, Aniruddha Singh armed with Lathi, Indrabhan Singh armed with country made pistol. Indrabhan Singh exhorted and said that Mahendra Pratap Singh is contesting many cases, therefore, he should be killed and he fired upon him but he got narrow escape. Shiv Mangal Singh and