Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2021GOVA/1002720/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court heard an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. filed by the State challenging the acquittal of accused persons by the trial court. The Court found that the trial court properly appreciated the evidence and noticed no illegality.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for grant of leave to appeal was rejected, and the memorandum of appeal was dismissed.

State of U.P. Vs Chhotey Lal and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Chief Justice’s Court Additional Cause List Serial No.6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Lucknow)

¶4

¶5

U/s 378 Cr.P.C. No. 2720 of 2006

¶6

State of U.P.

¶7

...Applicant

¶8

Through: Smt. Smiti Sahay, Additional Government Advocate v/s

¶9

Chhotey Lal and others

¶10

...Opposite parties

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER

¶13

NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, J.

¶14

The present appeal with application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against judgment and order dated 19.07.2006, passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.1, Lakhimpur-Kheri, in Session Trial No.655 of 1997. Vide the above judgment, the trial court has acquitted accused persons, Chhotey Lal, Bharat and Prem Kumar in Crime No.203 of 1996, under Sections 304/34 IPC, Police Station Neemgaon, District Kheri.

¶15

The brief facts of the case, according to the FIR, are that, on 22.10.1996, at about 8.00 P.M., Manohar Lal, who was the father of the informant was coming towards his house by a tractor trolley with bricks taken from the brick-kiln. On the way, his tractor trolley tripped and bricks from trolley fell down. Having seen the occurrence, accused persons Chhotey Lal and his two sons Bharat and Prem Kumar came and started rebuking the driver and slapped Manohar Lal. Subsequently,

¶16

2 U/s 378 Cr.P.C.No.2720 of 2006

¶17

Manohar Lal was brought to his house. When they were going to outpost Sikandrabad to inform the police and thereafter were going to Lakhimpur Hospital for treatment, on the way Manohar Lal succumbed due to injuries received by him.

¶18

His son Ambika Prasad lodged the First Information Report written by scribe Shailendra Kumar Mishra on 23.10.1996, at 11.30 A.M., which was registered as Crime No.203/96, under Section 304 IPC. After lodging of the F.I.R., the Investigating Officer conducted the inquest report, recorded statement of witnesses, sent the body of the deceased for post mortem and after completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against accused persons under Sections 304/34 IPC. The case was committed to the Session Court and charges were framed under the aforesaid sections of IPC against accused persons, which were denied by them and they preferred to be tried.

¶19

In the post mortem report of deceased Manohar Lal, two ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased. One was, contusion 3 C.M. X 1 C.M. on the left eyebrow and the other was also a contusion 6 C.M. X 2 C.M. on right side back of the head. The temporal and occipital bone of right side of head were found fractured.

¶20

The learned trial court, after hearing the arguments of both sides and discussing the evidence on record, concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons and acquitted them of all the charges.

¶21

The learned A.G.A., pressing the application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C., submitted that the trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused persons. The trial court did not consider the settled principles of law and could not assess and appreciate the evidence in accordance with law. Prosecution succeeded in proving the charges against the accused persons but the trial court did not consider the same and acquitted them. Therefore, the impugned judgment has been challenged by State by way

¶22

3 U/s 378 Cr.P.C.No.2720 of 2006

¶23

of appeal. The application under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and accordingly the appeal is liable to be admitted.

¶24

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

¶25

The record of trial court indicates that at the time of occurrence, witness PW 1, Ambika Prasad, who is also the informant of the case, was not present at the spot. In F.I.R., neither he mentioned about any use of brick by accused persons as weapon to cause injury to Manohar Lal nor has shown the manner of attack to cause injury to his father. The best witness of the occurrence was the driver of tractortrolley, namely, Itwari and one Raj Bahadur, the son of the tractor owner who allegedly was coming behind the tractor, but both the witnesses were not produced by the prosecution. The motive of occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution. No specific role of accused persons has been shown. Since the occurrence took place at 8.00 P.M. in village area therefore the availability of source of light also has not been established by the prosecution. The F.I.R. has been lodged after considerable delay and the reason of delay has not been explained, as it has been shown in F.I.R. that father of informant had died on same day when he was going for medical treatment, whereas F.I.R. in the case has been lodged by informant on next day at 11.30 A.M. The trial court also held that the sole testimony of PW 1, Ambika Prasad, does not inspire confidence. There is nothing on record which could prove that witness PW 1 was eye witness of occurrence. The post mortem report is contrary to F.I.R. version. There is no recovery of any incriminating article. Hence, the trial court, after discussing the facts, circumstances and the evidence on record, acquitted the accused persons as prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons. The view taken by the trial court is one of the possible views and cannot be found perverse. The judgment of lower court is well discussed and founded on evidence

¶26

4 U/s 378 Cr.P.C.No.2720 of 2006

¶27

available on record. No illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned judgment.

¶28

In case of acquittal by trial court, undoubtedly there is double presumption in favour of the accused persons. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to them under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. In absence of strong and cogent evidence on record and failure of prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and if two views are reasonably possible, appellate court ought not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by learned trial court.

¶29

Keeping in view the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court was probable and logical and the order of acquittal has been passed by trial court after proper assessment of fact and evidence, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable. There is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

Lucknow December 8, 2021 ML/Manish Himwan

¶34

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

¶35

Digitally signed by MUNNA LAL Date: 2022.02.24 14:54:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal and 2 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 Nanhey Lal Yadav and Another

State of U.P. Vs Ahibaran and 3 Others

State of U.P. Vs Nan Bacha