Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

01.04.2024

1. I.A. No. 01 of 2024, is an application for condonation of delay of

107 days in filing the appeal. The cause shown is found to be sufficient. The application stands allowed.

2. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 09/08/2023, passed in Session Trial No. 55/2017, by the court of 1st Additional Session Judge, Dist- Balrampur Ramanujganj (CG) acquitting the Respondent from the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 307, R/W 34 of IPC, and convicting all the accused persons for lesser offence under Section 325 R/W Section 34 of IPC except Respondent No. 2 in connection with Crime No. 40/2017, registered at Police Station Pasta Dist- Balrampur Ramanujganj (CG)

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

(1) The accused persons/ respondents had, on 30/06/2017 at 7-8 am in the morning, in furtherance of their conman intention attacked the PW/4 Sunil with Lathi, Danda when the said PW-4 Sunil Mishra was plowing the lands with tractor belonging to his mother at village Ghaghra along with Thuru Prajapati and Hemeanth Yadav. On the date and time of incident all the accused attacked PW-4 and attempted murder, they abused the victim PW/4 Sunil Mishra accusing him of trying to encroach on their hands. Due to the aforementioned assert the victim received severe injuries on his head, hand, leg etc. on seeing the incident, Thuru Prajapati informed the brother of victim Sandeep Mishra and thereafter Sandeep Mishra had come to spot and when he arrived at the spot, the accused persons had fled the spot. Thereafter Sandeep Mishra has filed report (Ex-P/12) and then the Police, after investigating the matter had filed charge-sheet making accused all the accused persons for the offence.

(2) After filing the charge - sheet, the respondents /

accused were put to face charges before the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 307/34 of IPC. The respondents/ accsed abjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses in its favour.

(3) After appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondents/ accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondents/ accused from the offence charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 09/08/2023 and convicted the respondents Nos. 1, 3 & 4 with lesser offence i.e. offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC and acquitted the respondent No. 2, hence, present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal.

4. Mr. R. S. Marhas, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant/ State would submit that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondents from the offence charged by discarding the evidence of prosecution witnesses without there being any strong reason to discard their evidences. He further submits that the learned Sessions court was not justified in acquitting the co-accused Mahendra Pratap of offences under Section 307/34 of the IPC giving benefit of doubt and looking at the medical evidence on record including the evidence of PW-8 Dr. A.K. aishwal and that of PW-13 Dr. Pankaj Dhavliya and Dr. Ram Krishn K. Hospital who also deposed to the fact that the victim PW-4 Sunil remain admitted in hospital from 13/06/2017 to 07/07/2017, one could easily comprehend that the common intention of the accused persons was committed the offence under Section 307 of IPC. He further submit that there is no reason to disbelieve prosecution case on the ground of lack of motive. That the contradictions and omissions pointed out by the trial court in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not material to disbelieve the prosecution case and therefore the judgment, findings, order of acquittal with respect to respondent No. 2 and convicting the respondent Nos 1, 3 & 4 with lesser offence passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, i