Dismissed

State of U.P. v. Shabbir and Ors.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024A378/71/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State sought leave under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. to appeal against acquittal of accused persons in a trial involving IPC offences and a Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Atrocities Act charge. The High Court found no illegality in the acquittal and rejected the leave application.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal rejected; appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld.

State of U.P. Vs Shabbir and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26797

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 No. - 71 of 2013

¶4

Applicant :- State of U.P. Opposite Party :- Shabbir And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Govt. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Harish Chandra Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Having regard to the request made by learned counsel for the applicant-State to condone the delay, as shown by the stamp reporter vide its report dated 04.02.2013 and the objections which have been raised by learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6, finding sufficient force in the submissions made by learned A.G.A, the delay, which has occurred in filing the instant leave to appeal is, hereby, condoned.

¶7

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Harish Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 6 and perused the record of the trial Court.

¶8

By means of instant application moved under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., the State has requested to grant leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shravasti in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2002 "State vs. Shabbir and others", arising out of Case Crime No. 169 of 2000, under Sections 143, 323/149, 336, 504 of I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(10) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Ikauna, District Shravasti, whereby the accused persons/respondents have been acquitted by the trial Court of all the charges framed against them.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. while drawing the attention of this Court towards the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2013, submits that the trial court has committed manifest illegality in appreciating the evidence available on record and has passed the judgment of acquittal only on the basis of 'surmises and conjectures'.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that though, some of the injured witnesses were declared hostile, however, the same may not be the only criteria of exonerating the accused persons if the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses is achieving the standard of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and, thus, a

¶11

material illegality has been committed by the trial court.

¶12

Shri Harish Chandra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 6 vehemently submits that there is no illegality in the judgment and order passed by the trial court, as one of the injured, namely, Jugul Dutt was declared hostile and another injured, namely, Pawan Kumar was testified from the side of the defence as D.W.-1 and both these injured witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, while the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.1/Baccha Lal (Informant) and P.W.-2/Gyan Chand is full of embellishments and material contradictions and the same has rightly not been acted upon by the trial court that there is no occasion to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.

¶13

Having heard learned A.G.A. for the State and having perused the record of the trial Court, it is reflected that four persons are shown to have sustained injuries from the side of the prosecution, namely, Gyan Chand, Jugul Dutt, Pawan Kumar and Raju.

¶14

The trial court while dealing with the evidence of Gyan Chand at Page No.4 and 6 of its judgment has found the evidence of P.W.-2/Gyan Chand as not reliable having regard to its inherent infirmities and weaknesses. Admittedly the other injured, namely, Raju has not been testified by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Now, so far as the two other injured persons, namely, Pawan Kumar and Jugul Dutt are concerned, Pawan Kumar has appeared as a defence witness and has not supported the version of the prosecution, while the Jugul Dutt has been testified as P.W.-3 and has been declared hostile, as he did not supprt the case of the prosecution.

¶15

The trial court after discussing all the material facts and circumstances of this case, came to a conclusion that the case of the prosecution is not establishing the parameters of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. Considering the judgment of the trial court in the light of the evidence which was tendered before it and having regard to the admitted fact that out of four injured persons, one has not been produced by the prosecution and out of remaining three, two have not supported the version of the prosecution and the testimony of the fourth injured person, namely, Gyan Chand has not been found truthful, I do not find any illegality committed by the trial court in exoneration the accused persons/respondents. Admittedly the informant of the case is not eye witness.

¶16

It is to be recalled that after non-production of the injured

¶17

Raju and hostility of the other two injured persons, namely, Jugul Dutt and Pawan Kumar, the only injured person remained was Gyan Chand and having regard to the established principles of appreciation of evidence when the case of the prosecution is rests on the testimony of the single witness, the evidence of that witness must be wholly reliable.

¶18

Thus, having regard to the shaky evidence available against the accused persons, no interference is required in the judgment and order passed by the trial court, as the view adopted by the trial court was a plausible and possible view.

¶19

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

¶20

Since application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the memorandum of appeal also does not survive. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 1.4.2024 Praveen

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. v. Shabbir and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. v. Shabbir and 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

Smt. Shyama Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow

Ankit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Radha Mohan Singh Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Sub Zonal Office Allahabad)

Sharad Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Ravindra Nath Verma and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

State of U.P. Vs Sewakram and Another