Home | Legal Advice | Judgment | State of U.P. Versus Samar Nath Yadav And Others

State of U.P. Versus Samar Nath Yadav And Others

By Shivendra Pratap Singh
Estimated Reading Time:

State of U.P. Versus Samar Nath Yadav And Others [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. – 2781 of 2012]

Judgment

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused-respondents dated 07.04.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Jaunpur in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2003 (State Vs. Samar Nath and others), arising out of Case Crime No.892 of 2002, for offences under Sections 147, 302/149 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur.

2. As per prosecution case, Rajeev Ratan lodged first information report alleging that there is a dispute regarding construction of house on the residential lease land between the accused and cousin brother of the complainant. Accused stopped the construction on the disputed land and threatened to kill in case construction would be done. Complainant, further alleged that while coming along with his father Dr. Bhagwan Das from the city on 09.11.2002 and as soon as, they reached Nai Ganj Tiraha at 4.15 evening, accused Samar Nath, Lal Sahab, Shailesh, Raju Yadav and Suraj stopped the complainant and his father. Accused started beating his father with iron rod, hockey stick. In the meantime, Lallan Yadav, Anil Kumar and younger brother of the complainant Sanjeev Ratan came on the spot and accused ran away. The complainant brought his injured father to Sadar Hospital, where he was medically examined and referred to Varanasi. On the way to Varanasi, his father succumbed to the injury. The F.I.R. was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act. Investigating Officer investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet.

3. Case was committed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter the charges were framed by the Sessions Court. The prosecution produced seven witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 Rajeev Ratan, P.W.-2 Sanjeev Ratan, P.W.-3 (S.I.) P.P. Shukla, P.W.-4 Dr. Prem Bahadur Gautam, P.W.-5 Dr. Awadhesh Kumar, P.W.-6 (Inspector) Surendra Tiwari and P.W.-7 (S.I.) Uma Shankar Pandey.

4. The accused were afforded opportunity under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty and stated before the Court that they were falsely implicated due to enmity. The accused also produced the document of Case Crime No.771 of 1997, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and the charge sheet (Exhibit Kha-1).

5. The trial court conducted the trial and after recording the statement of witnesses and upon examining the evidences on record, the accused were acquitted. Hence, the present appeal.

6. We have heard learned A.G.A. and perused the lower court record with the assistance of learned counsel.

7. The doctor has found eight injuries on the body of the deceased, which are as under:-

(i) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on top of skull 15 cm behild left eyebrow. Fresh blood ozzing.

(ii) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.2 cm x bone deep on left side skull. 3 cm left to injury no.1. Fresh blood ozzing.

(iii) Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on right side skull, 7 cm above right ear.

(iv) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on upper lip just below nostril. Bleeding from left nostril.

(v) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on anterior aspect of little finger of right hand. Fresh blood ozzing.

(vi) Abraded contusion 5 cm x 3 cm on left side chest 8 cm above & left to umbilicus.

(vii) Traumatic Swelling 15 cm x 10 cm on and arround right ankle joint.

(viii) Traumatic swelling 14 cm x 8 cm on and around left ankle joint.

Injury nos.4 and 6 are simple in nature, whereas, x-ray was advised for injury nos.3, 5, 7 and 8. As per post-mortem report, it was opined by the doctor that death occured due to excessive bleeding caused by anti-mortem injuries.

8. P.W.-1, Rajeev Ratan and P.W.-2, Sanjeev Ratan are the witnesses of fact, whereas, P.W.-3 to P.W.-7 are formal witnesses. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 have stated the same facts in examination-in-chief which was narrated by P.W.1 (the complainant) in the F.I.R.

9. We have to examine whether prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. It is admitted case that P.W.-1 Rajeev Ratan and his father Dr. Bhagwan Das were coming togther on a scooter. Dr. Bhagwan Das was inflicted injuries by the accused but complainant, who was also accompanying, did not receive a single injury. As per statement of complainant, his father died of serious injuries, but the complainant did not receive even a scratch on his body. It is, thus, obvious that the presence of P.W.-1 is highly doubtful at the place of occurrence/incident.

10. Accused, Samar Nath Yadav was armed with rifle and hockey stick and Sahilesh was armed with gun and hockey stick, but medical report indicates that no fire arm injury was found on the body of the deceased. If there was an intention to kill Bhagwan Das, the accused would have in all probability caused firearm injury. It is also unnatural to believe that accused were armed with firearm in one hand and hockey stick in another hand.

11. The deceased was brought to the Hospital and the entry made in the register was an accidental case. P.W.-4 Dr. Prem Bahadur Gautam was examined who admitted the said fact. P.W.-4 deposed that no firearm injury was found and all the injuries were caused with blunt object.

12. P.W.-5, Dr. Awadhesh Kumar, conducted the post-mortem admitted in cross examination that there was possibility that injuries could have been caused in an accident.

13. P.W.-1, Rajeev Ratan admitted that his father died when he was carrying him to Varanasi and then he came back to Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur, and handed the written Tahrir. F.I.R. was lodged at 9.30 in the night on the same day. F.I.R. is belated. As per prosecution case, P.W.-1, Rajeev Ratan and P.W.-2, Sanjeev Ratan both sons of the deceased were present in the hospital at 5 o’clock in the evening at Jaunpur, but nobody lodged the F.I.R. In all probability F.I.R. was lodged on consultation and afterthought.

14. After death of the deceased, the body was brought to Police Station Kotwali, but no Panchayatnama was done, rather Panchayatnama was done on the next day i.e. 10.11.2002 in the mortuary. The dead body, if present at Police Station, the Panchayatnama was not done, for which, no explanation has been furnished. The Investigating Officer, Surendra Tiwari was also examined before the Court, who admitted that he got information about the death of deceased at 10 o’clock in the night of 09.11.2002. He did not inspect the spot and went to the place of occurrence on the next day. He prepared the site plan. Entire exercise was done after 15 hours from the incident. The hockey stick was not sent for expert examination. After four days from the date of incident Raju Yadav was taken on remand by the police. The belated recovery of hockey stick weakened the prosecution case.

15. P.W.-3 to P.W.-7 are formal witnesses, they proved the documents prepared by them.

16. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 shattered their case in cross examination. The complainant did not receive a single injury, who was accompaning the deceased on the scooter. The opinion and finding of trial court calls for no interference. The prosecution failed to establish the case and the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

17. Accordingly, leave to appeal application is rejected. In consequence, the appeal is also dismissed.

~

Privacy Protection

Under privacy protection, we don’t publish your questions on the website. We keep your question confidential and protected by password.

shivendra pratap singh advocate

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Practising lawyer at the High Court Lucknow. Expertise in Criminal, Civil, Matrimonial, Writ, Service matters, Property, Revenue and RERA related issues.

Kanoonirai has been advising in legal issues since October 2014. You can consult a lawyer through online media, telephonic consultation and video conferencing.

Contact

mail[at]kanoonirai.com
+91-91400-4[nine][six]54