State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Vs Smt. Laxmi and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49725

Court No. - 13

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 378 DEFECTIVE No. - 115 of 2025

Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Opposite Party :- Smt. Laxmi And Another Counsel for Applicant :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

(Order on Memo of Application)

¶7

Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the applicant-State.

¶8

The instant application has been filed for a leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court no.2, Barabanki in Session Case No.1795 of 2021 arising out Case Crime No.47 of 2019, under Section 364, 120-B IPC, P.S. Satrikh, District Barabanki.

¶9

The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of a report lodged by the complainant stating that his elder brother Rambabu had been abducted by the accused persons. The respondent No.1 is the wife of the alleged victim Rambabu and respondent No.2 is husband of sister of respondent No.1.

¶10

The complainant was examined as P.W.1 and he stated that his elder brother Rambabu had gone away from home between 07:00-08:00 a.m. on 02.11.2018 and he believed that his brother's wife, her brother-in-law and her uncle had managed abduction of informant's brother. The victim had got married to the respondent No.1 on 19.04.2018. He stated that there were affectionate relationship between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. They used to talk over phone and make physical relations. He has handed over a phone recording to the Investigating Officer.

¶11

The Investigating Officer had carried out an excavation at a place and had found a one inch long piece which appeared like a bone and some smaller pebbles. Those were sent for postmortem examination and the doctor stated that the remains did not belong to a human body.

¶12

A378D No. 115 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

The P.W.2 was the mother of the victim and she also implicated the accused persons on the basis of suspicion only. The P.W.3 was a witness of the excavation report and he stated that nothing was found in excavation. The P.W.4 Munna stated that he drives a tempo, on the date of the incident, the victim had sat in his tempo and had asked him to drop him at Barabanki. When this witness stated that there were not enough passengers in tempo, the victim had got down near nevli crossing.

¶15

The P.W.5 has stated that he has seen the victim alighting a tempo. He had asked him as to where he was going in the morning. The victim stated that he was going towards Barabanki and he went towards Barabanki on foot.

¶16

The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.8 and he tried to establish a prosecution case on the basis of material collected during the investigation. He stated that the complainant had given an audio recording of a conversation between the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 said that the call was being recorded and the respondent No.2 asked her to switch off the recording. The respondent No.1 asked the respondent No.2 in case police comes to him, he should not given any false statement under fear.

¶17

This telephonic conversation does not contain anything which may contain the guilt of the respondents.

¶18

After scrutinizing the evidence, the trial court concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondents.

¶19

Having gone through the judgment of the trial court, I do not find that the findings of the trial court suffer from any perversity warranting detailed scrutiny by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. There is no good ground for granting leave to the State to file an appeal against judgment and order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, court no.2, Barabanki in Session Case No.1795 of 2021.

¶20

Accordingly, the application is rejected and the same is consigned to records.

¶21

(Order on C.M.A. No.1 of 2025)

¶22

A378D No. 115 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Since the Court has rejected the application for leave to file an appeal, there is no occasion for deciding the application for condonation of delay in filing the application. The application for condonation of delay is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

Order Date :- 22.8.2025 S. Shivhare

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow v. Smt. Laxmi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow v. Smt. Laxmi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajeet Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Ajeet Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home

Golu Singh @ Harshvardhan Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Parsuram Sharma Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation /Ac-I, New Delhi Thru. S.P.

Ram Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ankit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.