Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO

APPEAL) No. - 6 of 2019

In

Criminal Appeal (Against Acquital) No. 6 of 2019

Applicant :- Samar Jeet Singh

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Applicant :- Rabindra Nath Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dharmendra Pratap Singh

Chauhan,Shiv Nath Singh

Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, Sri Shiv Nath

Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Dharmendra

Pratap Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4

as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This application has been moved to grant leave to file appeal

against the judgment and order dated 22.10.2018 passed by

Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 9, Kanpur

Dehat in Session Trial No. 102 of 2014 arising out of Case

Crime No. 462 of 2011, under section 308, 323, 504, and 506

IPC, P.S. Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat (State Vs. Man

Singh and two others).

According to prosecution case on 24.6.2011 at about 6:00 P.M.

O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 and one Rohit assaulted informant Samarjeet

and his mother Ram Murti with kicks and fists, Lathi and

Danda. Initially the NCR was lodged under section 323, 504

IPC. Thereafter, the case was converted under section 308, 323,

504 and 506 IPC. The Investigating Officer after collecting

evidence submitted charge-sheet against O.P. Nos. 2 to 4. The

involvement of Rohit was found false. No charge-sheet was

submitted against him. The prosecution in its support has

examined P.W. 1 Ram Murti, P.W. 2 Samarjeet, P.W. 3 constable

Raj Bahadur, P.W. 4 Manjeet, P.W. 5 Dr. Narendra Singh, P.W. 6

constable Har Narayan, P.W. 7 Dr. Vinay Kumar, P.W. 8

Harnam Singh and P.W. 9 S.I. Girja Shanker Pandey. The

statements of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. in

which they denied the alleged incident and have stated that they

have falsely been implicated. The learned trial court after

considering the entire evidence available on record came to the

conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge

levelled against the accused persons. Consequently giving

benefit of doubt the trial court has acquitted the accused

persons/O.P. Nos. 2 to 4. Being aggrieved the informant has

preferred this appeal with application of leave to appeal.

From the perusal of judgment of trial court it is apparent that

P.W. 1 Ram Murti who is injured has clearly stated that Rohit

caused injury to her on her abdomen with brick. At the time of

medical examination only one injury has been found on the

person of injured Ram Murti. P.W. 5 Dr. Narendra Singh has

medically examined Smt. Ram Murti. This witness in his cross-

examination has clearly stated that there was no mark of injury.

The injured was conscious and she was talking. At the time of

medical examination no visible injury was found on the person

of injured. Injury no. 1 was complaint of pain and the injured

had made specific allegation against one Rohit for causing

injury to her with brick. No charge-sheet was submitted against

Rohit. His involvement has been found false. The learned trial

court has concluded that medical evidence does not corroborate

the prosecution version. He further concluded that the presence

of P.W. 2 at the place of occurrence is doubtful. It has further

been mentioned that Varsha and Veer Singh who are said to be

eye witnesses of the alleged incident, had not been examined by

the prosecution. The learned trial court after considering the

entire evidence available on record has found that the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable

doubt. Consequently, giving benefit of doubt the trial court has

acquitted the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 namely Man Singh, Shiv Kumar

and Ram Autar.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not

find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment

passed