Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Teju and Others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2019GOVA/8508/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the State to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of three accused in a case involving assault and SC/ST Act offences. The Court examined the discrepancies between prosecution witnesses' statements and the medical report regarding injuries. Finding no material regularity or illegality in the lower court's view, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal rejected; Government appeal dismissed at the admission stage on merit.

State of U.P. Vs Teju and Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 8508 of 2007

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri C.P. Singh, learned AGA 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 31.8.2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Siddharthnagar in Session Trial No. 369 of 2000 (State vs. Teju and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 99 of 1999, Police Station Lotan, District Siddharthnagar acquitting opposite party nos 1 to 3 namely, Teju, Rakesh and Chandrika under Sections 323/34, 504/34 IPC and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act.

¶7

Learned AGA submitted that impugned judgment and order acquitting accused-opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 is wholly illegal, perverse and bad in the eyes of law, hence is liable to be set aside.

¶8

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Teju, Rakesh and Chandrika alleging that on 22.12.1999 at 6 P.M. they abused and assaulted Smt. Sonmati and her daughter Meena. Smt. Sonmati received eight injuries but simple in nature.

¶9

FIR was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. After framing of charge, P.W.1 Kumarey (complainant), P.W.-2 Sonmati, P.W.3 Smt. Meena, P.W.4 Sarvajeet @ Sabhajeet, P.W.-5 Dr. Mahendra Nath Dwivedi, P.W. 6 Constable Sri Ram Ugra Kushwaha and P.W.7 Constable Lal Bahadur Singh were examined. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied charges and stated that they have been falsely implicated. After hearing learned counsel for opposite party Nos 1 to 3 as well as Government Advocate, impugned order was passed. Hence this appeal.

¶10

From perusal of record, it transpires that two persons namely Sonmati and Meena were shown injured witnesses. No external injury was found on the body of Meena. According to injury report, Sonmati received eight injuries including abrasions,

¶11

contusions and pain. Doctor opined that injuries of Smt. Sonmati were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object.

¶12

According to statement of Sonmati, accused Teju assaulted her with axe(Tunga) but no incised wound was found on her body whereas P.W.3 Meena stated that Accused namely, Chandrika and Rakesh assaulted her with 'Khunti' of bamboo but she received no visible injury on her body. Hence major contradictions were found between the statements of witnesses and medical report. Doctor clearly stated that injuries found on the body of Smt. Sonmati could not have been caused after 4- 5(morning) of 23.12.1999; thus, injury and time of incident do not corroborate each other. Hence it is doubtful that injury found on the body of injured Smt. Sonmati were caused as per version of FIR and the case of prosecution.

¶13

From perusal of record, it transpires that place of occurrence was not proved as stated in the FIR as well as from statement of witnesses except offence under Section 323 IPC. Other offences shown in FIR and in charge-sheet against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 namely, Teju Rakesh and Chandrika are not proved. FIR was lodged under Sections 323/504 IPC and Section 3(1(X) SC/ST Act but charge sheet was submitted under Sections 323, 504, 325 IPC and 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act. Even during trial no evidence was produced to prove offence under section 325 IPC by the prosecution. No fracture was found on the body of any injured. Hence it shows that several improvements have been done by the complainant in this case. Hence no charge has been proved against opposite party Nos. 1 to 3.

¶14

It is also pertinent to mention here that since incident is of 1999 and 19 years have elapsed, no fruitful purpose would be served in issuing notice to 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 :- 9.4.2019/P.P.

State of U.P. v. Teju and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Teju 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 Divakar Bhatt

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sakhi Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Bijendra Singh and Another

State of U.P. Vs Sabu @ Virendra Singh

State of U.P. Vs Maan Singh and Another