Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201863-DB

Court No. - 42

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 386 of 2023

Appellant :- State of U.P.

Respondent :- Matadeen S/O Paarikshat Lodhi

Counsel for Appellant :- Ashutosh Kumar Sand

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

1. Heard Shri K.P. Pathak for the appellant in this government appeal.

2. This government appeal has been filed praying to set aside the order of

acquittal under Sections 307 and 504 I.P.C. dated 31.05.2023 in Sessions

Trial No.162 of 2008 (State of U.P. vs. Matadeen) relating to Case Crime

No.215/2005 under Sections 324, 323, 504, 325 and 307 I.P.C., P.S.-

Majhgawan, District- Hamirpur; passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

FTC-I, Hamirpur.

3. Initially, the first informant lodged an F.I.R. on 21.09.2005 at 8:45 A.M.

alleging that the accused-respondent alongwith one Prem Narayan has

caused injuries by Lathi and Kulhadi at about 7 A.M. to the injured eye

witness P.W.-2 (Naresh Kumar). The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections

324, 504, 323 and 325 I.P.C. Chargesheet was filed by the police on

07.10.2005 under Sections i.e., 324, 323, 504 and 325 I.P.C.

Subsequently, the informant P.W.-1 (maternal uncle of the injured P.W.-2)

filed a Complaint Case No.63 of 2006 (Kalka Prasad vs. Matadeen and

Others) to summon the accused persons under Section 307 I.P.C. The said

case was transferred to the Court. Consequently, the Sessions Court

framed charges against the accused persons on 31.10.2013 under Sections

323, 324, 504, 325 and 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. Prosecution

examined six witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Kalka Prasad (informant), P.W.-2

1

Naresh Kumar (injured), P.W.-3 Brij Kishore, P.W.-4 Dr. K.D. Gupta (who

examined injuries of P.W.-2), P.W.-5 Dr. Akhilesh Kumar (Radiologist)

and P.W.-6 Constable Hari Narayan (who noted the F.I.R.).

4. In his cross examination, the informant P.W.-1 has admitted that the

complaint was not filed by the injured but he filed the complaint on

advice of a lawyer. In his cross examination, he stated that he does not

know what was written in the complaint. He stated that he does not

remember that what papers were filed alongwith the complaint.

5. The P.W.-3 Brij Kishore, in his cross examination; firstly stated that the

informant P.W.-1 was present at the place and time of occurrence but

subsequently, denied it. He stated that the P.W.-1 alongwith Balmukund,

Dev Karan and two others went to lodge F.I.R. at the police station but he

remained outside the police station.

6. The P.W.-6 Head Constable Hari Narayan has stated in his

examination-in-chief that the informant has come to the police station

with a written application alongwith the injured Naresh Kumar on

21.09.2005 at 7 A.M. and the F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 215 of 2005

under Sections 324, 504, 323 and 325 I.P.C. was registered and a copy of

F.I.R. was given to the informant P.W.-1 after obtaining

acknowledgement, which fact is mentioned in G.D. dated 21.09.2005 at

8:45 A.M. He proved the F.I.R. and the G.D. In his cross examination, he

admitted that Section 323 I.P.C. was inserted subsequently and there is

some over writing.

7. The learned Trial Court considered the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses and found that the P.W.-4 Dr. K.D. Gupta and P.W.-5 Dr.

Akhilesh Kumar have not stated nature of injuries to be such which may

cause death. The P.W.-3 Brij Kishore has stated that the accused-

respondent had spoken that he shall insult the injured P.W.-2 if money is

not returned. No evidence of insulting the injured could be filed nor it

could be proved that the accused-respondent has insulted the injured.

2

After meticulous discussion and analysis of evidence in paragraph nos.31

and 35 of the impugned judgement, the learned Trial Court recorded a

finding of fact that no offence under Sections 307 and 504 I.P.C. could be

established against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Learned AGA

could