Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh and Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2019GOVA/8189/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal preferred by the State against an acquittal in a criminal case involving assault and alleged atrocities. The High Court found the prosecution evidence unreliable due to discrepancies in injury reports, lack of gunshot injuries despite allegations, and unsupported testimony from prosecution witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal rejected; Government appeal dismissed at admission stage on merit; copy of order transmitted to lower court.

State of U.P. Vs Hakim Singh and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8189 of 2007

¶3

Appellant :- State Of U.P. Respondent :- Hakim Singh And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S. K Tripathi, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This Government appeal has been preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C. alongwith application for leave to appeal against judgment and order dated 18.8.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Mahoba in Special Case No. 5 of 2002(State vs. Hakim Singh and four others) arising out of Case Crime No.313 of 2000, Police Station Kabrai, District Mahoba acquitting opposite party Nos.1 to 5 Hakim Singh, Jagnayak Singh, Kishna, Vijay and Lakhan Singh under Sections 147, 323/149, 504, 506(II) IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act.

¶7

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

¶8

According to prosecution case, complaint was filed by Mool Chand against accused opposite parties alleging that on 28.10.2000 on the occasion of 'Holi' festival they abused and assaulted complainant and Barati Lal with sticks and shoes.

¶9

Injured Mool Chand and Barati Lal were examined by doctor. Mool Chand received seven injuries, injury no. 5 was kept under observation and other six injuries were found simple. Injured Mool Chand received three injuries, injury no. 1 was directed to be x-rayed and doctor opined that injury nos 2 and 3 could have been caused by stick and shoes.

¶10

Case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against opposite parties. After framing of charge, prosecution examined P.W.1 Mool Chand, P.W.-2 Dinesh Kumar, P.W.3 Dr. D.K. Tripathi, P.W.4 Constable Ram Sanehi, and P.W.-5 Constable Milap Chand Jain. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They stated that they have been falsely implicated due to partisan. D.W.1 Shiv Ratan and D.W.2 Ram Bharosey Paliwal were examined in defence.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for accused as well as Assistant

¶12

District Government Counsel, impugned order was passed. Hence this appeal.

¶13

From perusal of record, it transpires that prosecution has not been able to prove offence under Sections 147, 504, 506(II) IPC and Section 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act. So far as offence under Section 323/149 IPC is concerned, out of seven injuries of injured Barati Lal, seven injuries were found simple but he was not examined before the Court. Three injuries of injured Mool Chand were found simple in nature. According to FIR, firing was done by accused but none of the injured received gunshot injury. P.W.2 Dinesh Kumar stated that accused assaulted with shoes & sticks and one lathi blow hit the head of Mool Chand but no head injury was found in the injury report nor it was accepted by even Mool Chand. P.W.2 Dinesh Kumar stated that accused Jagnayak Singh and Hakim Singh opened fire but none of the injured received gunshot injury. Hence P.W.2 could not prove the prosecution case. Hence only evidence of P.W.1 Mool Chand is available before the Court. The incident is of 'Holi' festival and there was crowd, thus it could not be proved that if P.W.1 Mool Chand had received injuries, those was caused by appellants. D.W.2 Ram Bharosey Paliwal was eyewitness(owner of the house) in front of whose house the incident took place, has not supported the prosecution case. There is discrepancy in statement of P.W.1 Mool Chand who stated in examination-in chief that he was assaulted with shoes but in cross-examination he stated that nobody assaulted him with shoes. Hence there is no evidence of assault with shoes to any injured. There are various contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in the statements of injured Mool Chand and injury reports.

¶14

It is also pertinent to mention here that since incident is of 2000 and eighteen years have elapsed, no fruitful purpose would be served in issuing notice to the opposite parties.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 7.5.2019/P.P.

State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh and Others

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 Har Prasad and Others

Smt. Malti Vs State of U.P.

Ranjeet Kumar @ Banti Vs State of U.P.

Achhey Lal Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Rajiv @ Bablu and Others

State of U.P. Vs Jitturam and Others