Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Shiv Ram and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2021GOVA/1001269/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. filed by the State against an acquittal. The court held that the trial court's reasoning was logical and that no interference was warranted as the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for grant of leave to appeal rejected; memorandum of appeal dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Shiv Ram and 2 Ors. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Chief Justice’s Court Daily Cause List Serial No.32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Lucknow)

¶4

¶5

U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 1269 of 2003

¶6

State of U.P. ....Applicant

¶7

Through:- Ms. Smiti Sahay, Additional Government Advocate V/s

¶8

Shiv Ram and others ...Opposite parties

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JUDGE

¶10

ORDER

¶11

NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

¶12

The present appeal with Criminal Misc. Application under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State Government-appellant against judgment and order dated June 11, 2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2 Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.453 of 1999 (State vs. Shiv Ram and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 1998 under Sections 307 & 504 I.P.C. Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur. By the impugned judgment, the trial court has acquitted accusedrespondents Shiv Ram, Ramadhar and Dinesh from the charges under Sections 307 & 504 I.P.C.

¶13

2 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 1269 of 2003

¶14

In short the case of prosecution is that on April 11, 1998, the son of informant namely, Jitendra Kumar was grazing his goats in the fields of his village. In nearby area Dinesh S/o Shiv Ram, resident of same village was also grazing his goats. Dinesh hit lathi to the goat of Jitendra Kumar. He informed his family members about the act of Dinesh. The brother of informant Dileram went to the house of accused Shiv Ram and made a complaint regarding the said act of Dinesh but the accused Shiv Ram reacted and started abusing him when Dileram protested and forbidden to abuse, the accused persons Shiv Ram, Ramadhar attacked on him by Spear and Dinesh by lathi. In the said incident, Dileram received stab wound on the left side of his chest. On shouting voice for help witnesses Kunjbihari and Shravan Kumar reached on the spot and rescued to Dileram. The accused persons ran away towards their home by abusing. The informant brought the injured to the police station and lodged F.I.R.

¶15

The F.I.R. of the occurrence on the basis of above Tahrir was lodged in police station concerned at 11:45 on April 11, 1998. After completing the investigation, Investigating Officer has submitted chargesheet against the accused persons Shiv Ram, Ramadhar & Dinesh. The case was committed by the Magistrate concerned to Session court where the charges were framed under Section 307/34 I.P.C. against the accused persons Shiv Ram, Ramadhar & Dinesh, who denied the charges and prayed for trial.

¶16

Heard Smt. Smiti Sahay, learned Additional Government Advocate on application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal and perused the record.

¶17

Learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that trial court has not assessed and appreciated the evidence of prosecution in accordance with the settled law, whereas, the prosecution succeeded to prove the charges against accused. The impugned judgment suffers with material illegality and irregularity, hence, the application u/s 378(3) Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed to entertain the appeal against the order of acquittal.

¶18

3 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 1269 of 2003

¶19

In trial as prosecution witnesses, PW-1 Chhannu Lal, PW-2 Jitendra, PW-3 Dileram, PW-4 Dr. Sharad Chandra, PW-5 Dr. R.K. Srivastava, PW-6 Constable Kailash Yadav, PW-7 S.I. Virendra Singh and PW-8 S.I. Nisar Ahmad Khan have been examined. After completion of evidence of prosecution, the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which the accused persons have stated that evidence given by the prosecution witnesses is false. The accused Shiv Ram has mentioned that they were sitting at his residence, the informant and the other members of his family came there and started beating them, on shouting voice for help they ran away and during the course of running injured Dileram collided with Khunta and received the injury of stab wound on his chest.

¶20

In the oral evidence witness PW-1 Chhannu Lal has stated that he was the eye witness of the occurrence and both the accused persons Shiv Ram and Ramadhar attacked on Dileram by spear. On the other hand, in medico legal examination report only one injury of stab wound, having measurement 1 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm was found on the left side of the chest of injured Dileram. It also revealed that in the F.I.R., it has not been mentioned that the informant was the eye witness of the occurrence. Subsequently, the witness PW-1 has changed his statement and submitted that accused Ramadhar has attacked on Dileram by spear. It has also been mentioned that after receiving the injury Dileram has become unconscious and he regained consciousness on the next day in the hospital. Witnesses PW-1, PW-2 & PW3 have stated that injured has received injury by spear of Ramadhar. They have not stated the role of accused Dinesh who allegedly hit Dileram by Lathi. The trial court has also concluded that in the occurrence accused Ramadhar has received injury on his head which has been seen by the police persons when he reached at police station for lodging NCR under Section 323, 504 I.P.C. vide NCR No. 45/1998. The prosecution witnesses have not explained the injury of Ramadhar. The trial court has also found that the

¶21

4 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 1269 of 2003

¶22

evidence of prosecution witnesses has material contradiction on substantial point and concluded that prosecution could not prove the charges against accused persons. Consequently, the trial court has acquitted the accused persons, namely, Shiv Ram, Ramadhar & Dinesh from charges under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. The view taken by the trial court is possible and no perversity is found.

¶23

The judgment of lower court is well discussed and founded on evidence available on record. No illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned judgment. So far as the principle regarding grant of leave in such cases is concerned, the appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

¶24

A criminal trial proceeds with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons. With the acquittal of the accused - persons this presumption of innocence stands fortified. So very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of acquittal. When two views are reasonably possible, the High Court ought not interfere with the order of acquittal.

¶25

In the light of the guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned judgment has to be considered from the point of view whether the view taken by the trial court was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits.

¶26

Keeping in view the aforesaid failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused as noted by the trial court, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable. So, we are satisfied that there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for.

¶27

5 U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 1269 of 2003

¶28

Hence, the prayer for grant of leave to appeal is hereby rejected and the application is dismissed.

¶29

Since prayer for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the memorandum of appeal also does not survive and stands dismissed .

¶30

(Narendra Kumar Johari, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

¶31

Lucknow December 9, 2021 Reena/Kuldeep

¶32

Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No

¶33

Digitally signed by REENA KANNAUJIYA Date: 2022.02.24 18:28:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. v. Shiv Ram and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Shiv Ram and 2 Ors.

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 Nanhey Lal Yadav and Another

State of U.P. Vs Ahibaran and 3 Others

State of U.P. Vs Nan Bacha

State of U.P. Vs Ram Asrey and 2 Ors.

State of U.P. Vs Nazim Ali and Another

State of U.P. Vs Gulam Husain and Another