State Of U.P. v. Vrindawan And Others

1. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State appellant/applicant and perused the material on record.

2. This application has been filed by the State appellant/applicant with the prayer that leave to appeal may be granted against the judgement and order dated 19.12.2016, passed in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2014 (State v. Vrindawan), arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2014, under Sections 452, 302/34 IPC, P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur by the learned Special Judge(E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur whereby the accused respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under the sections referred to above.

3. A perusal of the record shows that P.W. 2 Sushil Kumar has not supported the prosecution story, as such, he was declared hostile. The Court below after scanning the entire material available on record recorded a finding that P.W. 4, Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi, alleged eye witness, was a chance witness. The story set up by him that he had gone to the Town Area for the preparation of the Adhar Card on the fateful day around 9.00 a.m. and while returning after 15 minutes he saw that the door of the deceased was open and the accused respondent was beating the deceased. Hari Shanker and Ravi Shaker were hitting the deceased with a stone and he was screaming. Since the dispute was going on amongst the family members, he left the place to his house. In the evening, when the complainant went to the house of the deceased he found the door locked from inside. When he tried to push and knock the door, there was no response from inside the house. Thereafter, he told the complainant about the incident which had occurred in the morning. The court below after scanning the record did not find the testimony of P.W. 4 to be reliable. The Court observed that he had not given plausible explanation as to why he waited for so long to inform about the incident to the complainant. The Court below has observed that there was enmity between P.W. 4 and the complainant previously. The court below has further found the ocular testimony to be in conflict with the medical evidence and has further not found any cogent and convincing evidence against the accused respondent.

4. From perusal of the record, we do not find any factual or legal error in the assessment of evidence by the court below while acquitting the accused respondents. Moreover, the view taken by the court below is a possible view. The court below has given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the order of acquittal.

5. We, therefore, do not consider it to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the applicant. The application seeking leave to appeal is, accordingly, rejected and, consequently the appeal is also dismissed.