# State of U.P v. Samar Nath Yadav & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 955
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-20
- **Case number:** Government Appeal No. 2781 of 2012
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar, Brij Raj Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-samar-nath-yadav-ors-48084
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Government
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
147,148,149,302/149,506 - The Code
of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section
313 - Criminal law ammendment Act -
section 7 (Para - )

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
-
threatened to kill in case construction
would be done - accused after trial was
acquitted - hence present appeal.(Para -
1to5)
HELD:-Prosecution failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt . P.W.-1 and P.W.-2
shattered their case in cross examination.
Complainant did not receive a single injury.
Prosecution failed to establish the case and the
circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Leave
to appeal application rejected.(Para -16,17 )

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Samar Nath Yadav & Ors.
955
we have no other option, but to concur with
the findings recorded by the learned trial
Judge.

26. The appeal lacks merit and is
dismissed, accordingly.

27. The record and proceedings be
sent back to the court-below.
----------
(2022)01ILR A955
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Government Appeal No. 2781 of 2012

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Samar Nath Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
--

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Government
Appeal - Appeal against acquittal -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
147,148,149,302/149,506 - The Code
of criminal procedure, 1973 - Section
313 - Criminal law ammendment Act -
section 7 (Para - )

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
-
threatened to kill in case construction
would be done - accused after trial was
acquitted - hence present appeal.(Para -
1to5)
HELD:-Prosecution failed to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt . P.W.-1 and P.W.-2
shattered their case in cross examination.
Complainant did not receive a single injury.
Prosecution failed to establish the case and the
circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Leave
to appeal application rejected.(Para -16,17 )

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

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
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 postmortem 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
1 All. State of U.P. Vs. Samar Nath Yadav & Ors.
957
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.
----------
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)01ILR A958
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Govt. Appeal No. 5120 of 2017

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Gajju ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.G.A.

Counsel for the Respondents:
--

(A) Criminal Law - Government appeal -
Appeal against acquittal - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 302/120B & 307 -
The Code of criminal procedure, 1973 -
Section 313.

Mother of accused - witness in a triple murder
case - Assault enacted by causing firearm injury
by the son of his mother - to enable
enlargement of his brother on bail - trial court
summoned accused respondent to face trial
trial - court acquitted the accused - Hence,
appeal.

HELD:-Alleged
conspiracy
hatched
by
accused/complainant not proved , no firearm
recovered, thus, the entire prosecution becomes
doubtful. Trial court rightly recorded that the
prosecution (I.O.) failed to produce evidence
against the accused, rather the witnesses are
unbelievable, false and were set up in
connivance with the accused in triple murder
case, in which the deceased was a witness and
pursuing the case. Her son (accused) falsely
implicated by the I.O. to favour the accused in
the triple murder case. I.O. committed serious
lapse while discharging his duties as an
Investigating Officer. Mechanically submitted
the
charge
sheet
against
the
complainant/accused . Direction issued to
initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
officials . Application seeking leave to appeal is
rejected. (Para - 14,20,21,23)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Sahabuddin & anr. Vs St. of Assam , (2012)
13 SCC 213)

2. Gajoo Vs St. of Uttarakhand , (2012) 9 SCC
532

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. This government appeal has been
preferred against the judgment dated 12
June 2017 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Khurja Nagar Bulandshahr
in Sessions Trial No. 519 of 2015 (State of
U.P. Vs. Gajju), arising out of Case Crime
No. 528 of 2014 for offences under
Sections 302/120B I.P.C., Police Station
Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr, by
which the sole accused respondent has been
acquitted.

2. Gajju/accused lodged a report on
28.06.2014 being Case Crime No. 528 of
2014 at 5:15 p.m., under Section 307 I.P.C.
(altered
to
Section
302
I.P.C.,
on
28.06.2014 during investigtion). As per
prosecution case, the complainant had gone
in pairavi of a case to the District Court,
Bulandshahr, and was informed by his
Bhabhi Omvati (D.W. -1)) that around 4
p.m., Bachchu, son of Sheeshram, Sukhvir,
son of Bachchu Singh, Gaurav, son of
Surendra @ Pappu, caused fire arm injury
in the stomach of his mother (Sukhveeri)
who had gone to fetch Kanda (cow dung
cake). His niece Meenu (D.W. -2) was with
his mother. He further mentioned that the
nominated accused had killed four persons
in the year 2010, in some other case, in
which his mother (Sukhveeri), was a