Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Suraj Alias Kallu and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2018GOVA/632/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A government appeal and application for leave to appeal were filed against an acquittal order of a Special Court under the SC/ST Act. The Special Court acquitted the accused recommending rehabilitation. The High Court, after examining the Special Court's findings, rejected the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the government appeal.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal rejected and government appeal dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Suraj Alias Kallu and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 632 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Suraj Alias Kallu And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶5

Heard learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State, learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the record.

¶6

The present government appeal has been filed along with an application for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.3.2018 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in ST No. 103 of 2016 (State of UP Vs Suraj alias Kallu and others) whereby accusedrespondents, namely, Suraj alias Kallu, Jahar Pal, Smt. Rani Devii and Hom Singh have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304B, 316, 302/34 of IPC and ¾ D.P. Act.

¶7

Learned AGA has pointed out that and contended that marriage of deceased took place on 9.5.2014 with respondent no. 1 and the incident is of 2.3.2016 i.e. within 2 years of marriage. The death is occurred under unnatural circumstances at the house of husband. Therefore, it gives rise to the presumption under the Evidence Act and the respondents should not be acquitted and they ought to have been convicted. It has been further contended that the court concerned have not appreciated the evidence on record in its correct prospective and has given judgment based on conjuncture and surmises.

¶8

Heard learned AGA at length and we have also perused the findings and record of the court concerned. The counsel for the respondents states that the court concerned has given elaborate and cogent reasons for acquitting the accused-respondents. It has been disputed by the learned AGA that till two days before the incident the deceased was living at her Mayaka with her parents and two days before the incident the deceased was brought on her in-laws house. It has also not been disputed by the learned AGA that as per record available the deceased was carrying pregnancy of 4 months on the date of incident and she was carrying twins as per medical examination report. It has also been disputed that husband (respondent no. 1) at the relevant time was not present in the house and was in Bombay where he work as a Waiter. Finding of the court concerned in this regard are extracted herein-below:-”

¶9

vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds c;ku ds vuqlkj ?kVuk ds nks fnu igys erdk dks mldk HkkbZ mldh llqjky NksM+ vk;k FkkA nks fnu ds vUrjky esa gh erdk dh QkWlh yxus ls eR;q gks x;h] vfHk;kstu lk{; ls ;g rF; Hkh lkfcr gS fd erdk dk ifr cEcbZ esa fdlh gksVy esa osVj dk dke djrk FkkA ih0MCyw01 us Hkh ftjg esa ;g dgk gS fd ;g ckr lgh gS fd mldk nkekn lwjt osVj dk dke cEcbZ esa djrk gS] mls ugha irk fd ?kVuk ds fnuksa esa cEcbZ esa lwjt gksVy esa ekStwn FkkA ih0MCyw01 dks ckn esa bl ckr dh tkudkjh gksuk vR;Ur LokHkkfod gS fd erdk dk ifr ?kVuk ds le; cEcbZ esa Fkk vFkok ?kj ij Fkk] yxrk gS fd tkucw> dj bl xokg us bl lR;rk dks fNik;k gSA ih0MCyw01 rFkk ih0MCyw02 dh lk{; ,oa iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ ls ;g rF; lkfcr gS fd ?kVuk ds le; erdk xHkZorh Fkh] ?kVuk ds nks fnu igys rd og ek;ds esa FkhA

¶10

The court concerned further recorded following findings:-

¶11

;g ckr vfHk;kstu lk{; ls iwjh rjg lkfcr gSA ?kVuk ds ,d&nks fnu igys og ek;ds esa Fkh] bl ckr dk dksbZ Hkh izek.k i=koyh ij ugha gS] ftlls ;g fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk lds fd xHkZorh gksus ds nkSjku erdk dk mlds ifr ls lEidZ gqvk gksA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls j[ks x;s bl rdZ esa lPpkbZ izrhr gksrh gS fd erdk ds uktk;t xHkZ Fkk] blhfy;s mlds firk us vius csVs ls ?kVuk ds ,d fnu iwoZ tcjnLrh mldks llqjky NqM+ok fn;k vkSj cnukeh ds Mj ls erdk us vkRegR;k dj yhA izLrqr ekeys dh tks ifjfLFkfr;ka gSa vkSj vfHk;kstu }kjk tks lk{; izLrqr dh x;h gS] mlls ;g fu"d"kZ ugha fudyrk gS fd okLro esa vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk 'kknh ds ckn ls erdk ls vfrfjDr nsgt ds :i esa 50]000@&:i;s rFkk vaxwBh dh ekax dh x;h vkSj ekax iwjh u gksus ij mls izrkfM+r fd;k x;k gks vkSj blh izrkM+uk ls vkftt vkdj mlus vkRegR;k dh gksA

¶12

Post mortem report says that deceased received no external injuries. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the legal position as made by the court we come to the conclusion that no case for indulgence have been made out. The application for leave to file appeal is hereby rejected. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed.

¶13

Copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance forthwith.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.7.2018 SKS

¶15

Court No. - 51

¶16

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 632 of 2018

¶17

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Suraj Alias Kallu And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

¶18

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ifaqat Ali Khan,J.

¶19

In view of the order passed by us on the application for grant of leave to appeal, this appeal is also dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 3.7.2018 SKS

State of U.P. v. Suraj Alias Kallu and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Suraj Alias Kallu and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. vs Ramesh

State of U.P. Vs Raj Singh

State of U.P. Vs Praveen and Anr.

State of U.P. Vs Rishipal

State of U.P. Vs Rajaram and Others

State of U.P. Vs Chandrashekhar Lodhi