Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Bijendra Singh and Another

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2019GOVA/3207/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court preferred a government appeal against the acquittal of accused persons charged with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, abetment of suicide, and concealing a design to cause death. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the lower court's view was plausible as the deceased died due to a heart attack, negating the presumption for suicide.

What did the court decide?

The government appeal was dismissed, the acquittal was upheld, and leave to appeal was rejected.

State of U.P. Vs Bijendra Singh and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 3207 of 2008

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Bijendra Singh And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt.Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Manas Bhargava, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the impugned judgment.

¶6

This Government appeal has been preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against judgment and order dated 29.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. 5, Saharanpur in Session Trial No. 121 of 2007 (State vs. Bijendra Singh and Mahendra Singh) arising out of Case Crime No. 141 of 2006, Police Station Gangalhedi, District Saharanpur acquitting opposite party nos 1 & 2 Bijendra Singh and Mahendra Singh under Sections 306, 201 IPC.

¶7

Learned Brief Holder submitted that impugned judgment and order acquitting accused-opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is wholly illegal, perverse and bad in the eyes of law, hence is liable to be set aside.

¶8

According to prosecution case, Krishna(daughter of complainant) was married to Bijendra Singh son of Mahendra Singh; after eight years of marriage, Bijendra Singh assaulted his wife for non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.50,000/- , hence she committed suicide and dead body was cremated without information to the complainant as well as family members.

¶9

Case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 147, 302, 201 IPC. After framing of charge, P.W.1 Isham Singh (complainant), P.W.-2 Smt. Ramwati(wife of complainant), P.W.3 Rajni, P.W.4 Constable 446 C.P. Yogendra Kumar, P.W.-5 S.I. Lakhan Singh(Investigating Officer), P.W.6 S.I. Shiv Gopal Gupta were examined. Statements of both accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied charges and stated that they had been falsely implicated. All witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Crossexamination was also done but nothing was found. After hearing learned counsel for accused persons as well as Government Advocate, impugned order was passed.Hence this appeal.

¶10

Learned Brief Holder further submitted that in the statement of

¶11

P.W.3 Rajni (daughter of deceased as well as Bijendra) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P. C. she stated that before the incident, husband Bijendra had beaten the deceased, hence this was material evidence against Bijendra Singh.

¶12

From perusal of record it transpires that fact of beating was not stated before the Court and daughter of deceased has not supported the prosecution case before the Court. She stated nothing before the Magistrate. Hence this is wrong statement. The age of daughter of deceased was five years but it is very clear that she stated nothing against opposite party No.1 and 2.

¶13

From perusal of record, it transpires that deceased was examined by the doctor before her death and doctor clearly stated that cause of death was heart attack. It appears that death of deceased was a natural death. It is also admitted fact that deceased died after eight years of marriage. Hence presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act will not apply against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Cause of death was natural and cremation was done. Hence no offence under Section 201 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

¶14

At this stage, learned Brief Holder further submitted that if cause of death was heart attack, why charge sheet was not submitted under Section 306 IPC by the Investigating Officer. This Court found that it was the work of Investigating Officer, hence it would not be proper to give any finding on this issue or pass stricture against the Investigating Officer if he had submitted charge sheet wrongly. .

¶15

It is also pertinent to mention here that since incident is of 2006 and 12 years have elapsed, no fruitful purpose would be served in issuing notice to opposite parties.

¶16

This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. View taken by lower Court is plausible view, hence no interference is called for in appeal.

¶17

In above backdrop, leave to appeal is rejected and consequently, Government appeal is dismissed at the admission stage on merit.

¶18

Copy of this order alongwith record of lower Court, if any be transmitted to the Court concerned within a week.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.4.2019 P.P.

State of U.P. v. Bijendra Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Bijendra Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Vs Divakar Bhatt

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sakhi Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Teju and Others

State of U.P. Vs Sabu @ Virendra Singh

State of U.P. Vs Maan Singh and Another