The High Court rejected the State's application for leave to appeal against an acquittal. Finding the trial court's reasons cogent and undisputed inconsistencies in prosecution testimony, the court held no case for indulgence arose and dismissed the appeal.
Application for leave to appeal rejected; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 51 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4073 of 2011 Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Praveen And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.
Heard Sri Rahul Srivastava learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
The counsel for the State has strongly pressed the application seeking leave to appeal for filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.4.2011 by virtue of which the accused respondents Praveen and Naveen have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 452, 307/34, 324/34 and 506 IPC PS Devband District Saharanpur.
After going through the impugned judgment and order this Court finds that the court concerned has given cogent reasons for acquitting the accused persons. The counsel for the State has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity with the findings as recorded by the trial court. It has not been disputed that no weapon has been recorded. It has also not been disputed that there is no gunshot injury. It has also not been disputed that even x-ray report was not sent for examination. It may also be appreciated that the court concerned has recorded categorical finding to the effect that "Swayam Jeetpal urf Jagat Singh ne apni pratipriksha me swikar kiya hai ki andhera ho raha tha, lalten jal rahi thi, light nahi aa rahi thi. PW-1 Jeetpal urf Jagat Siingh ne apni pratipriksha me yah bhi swikar kiya hai ki Lalten us samay baramade me khuti par tangi hui thi." The court concerned has further recorded finding that PW-1 Jeetpal is also not aware with regard to the date of the incident. In his chief examination he has said that date of incident is 9.1.2009 but subsequently he has changed his version by saying that date of incident is 9.1.2008. The court concerned has further recorded the finding with regard to discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1 even with regard to the motive. The court concerned recorded the finding to the effect that "isse yah bhi spasth hota hai ki ghatna ke hetuk ke sambandh me PW-1 Jagatpal urf Jagat Singh asatya kathan nyayalay ke samaksh prastut kar raha hai. We have also perused the finding as recorded by the trial court with the regard to the incident. Further the medical evidence does not support the ocular evidence.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case for grant of any indulgence has been made out.
Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Copy of the order may be certified to the court concerned in accordance with law for consequential follow up action.
The lower court record be sent back to the court concerned at the earliest.
Order Date :- 2.7.2018//SP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal of accused persons in the offences under Sections 307/34, 452, 324/34 and 506 IPC.
Whether the impugned judgment recorded cogent reasons for acquittal and is free from any illegality or perversity.
Whether the inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witness support the acquittal of the accused.
State Of U.P.
Praveen
Naveen
Vipin Sinha
Ifaqat Ali Khan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
