E-Court

Court No. - 42

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 699 of 2022

Appellant :- State of U.P.

Respondent :- Satyaram And 3 Others

Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Pal

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

Re: Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal)

1.

Heard Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla, learned AGA for the State-

appellant and perused the records.

2.

This Government appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and order dated 22.07.2022 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast

Track Court, District Badaun in Session Case No.312 of 2009 (State of

U.P. vs. Satyaram and Others), arising out of Case Crime No.544 of

2008, under sections 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 323/34, Police

Station- Gunnaur, District Badaun, whereby the accused respondents

have been acquitted from the charges under the aforesaid sections.

3.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that a written tehrir/complaint dated

15.06.2008 was given by the complainant Sriniwas at Police Station

Gunnaur stating therein that on 13.06.2008 his son Giriraj, aged about

20 years, went to the field of corn in the night of 13.06.2008 and did

not return till morning. On the basis of that written tehrir a missing

report was registered. After investigation, it was found that it is a case

of kidnapping. Therefore, a first information report was registered

against unknown person. After registration of the case the Investigating

Officer has started the investigation and during investigation a

decomposed dead body of Giriraj was found on 17.06.2008. After

preparing Panchnama and other related documents, dead body was sent

1 of 5

for post mortem. Site plan was also prepared. During investigation

name of witness Mahipal came to light. Mahipal in his statement

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that at the time of

incident Satyaram, Ajiram, Lekhraj and Aram Singh had also beaten

him and took Giriraj by tiding his hand and killed him. On the basis of

this statement, Investigating Officer has collected the evidence and

submitted chargeseet against the accused persons under Sections 364,

302, 201, 323 IPC.

4.

The accused respondents denied the prosecution allegations and

claimed to be tried.

5.

In support of prosecution case, PW-1-Sriniwas (complainant),

PW-2-Mahipal (injured witness), PW-3-Ramniwas Yadav, PW-4-Dr.

Harpal Singh, PW-5 H.C.P. Bhola Singh, PW.6-S.S.I, Devendra Kumar

Tyagi, PW-7-Rajpal and PW-8-Dr. Ajay Kumar Tyagi were produced

and examined before the Court below.

6.

The judgement of acquittal has been passed on the ground that it

is a case of circumstantial evidence; no one has seen the incident in

question. PW.2-Mahipal, who is stated to be the star injured witness

who was allegedly injured in the incident has not suffered any injury

which could have made him unconscious and all the injuries suffered

by him were simple in nature. PW-8 Dr. Ajay Kumar Tyagi in his cross

examination had clearly stated that injuries were simple in nature and

they could not have made accused unconscious. He had even stated to

the extent that due to such injuries it is not possible to injured Mahipal

would be having any difficulty in speaking. The court below also found

that the allegation of PW-2 Mahipal that he has lost his eye sight due to

beating is also not worth belief as there is no documentary evidence

regarding his treatment and admission either in the government hospital

or in the private hospital. There was not even single prescription on

record to prove the same. Under such circumstances, it was found that

2 of 5

the chain of evidence is not completed in the present case and

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt, therefore, benefit

of doubt is granted to the accused respondents.

7.

Challenging the impugned judgment, learned AGA submits that

there is an injured eye witness, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a

case of circumstantial evidence but in fact it is a case of direct evidence