Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM KALI versus SONELAL & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Kali v. Sonelal & Others - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3052 of 1981 [2005] RD-AH 5448 (9 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 46

Criminal Appeal No. 3052 of 1981

Ram Kali versus Sone Lal and others.

-------

Hon�??ble Mukteshwar Prasad J.

This criminal appeal by complainant Smt. Ram Kali wife of Dhani Ram has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1980 passed by Sri P.C. Maheshwari, the then Special Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, whereby he acquitted Sone Lal, and six others of the charge under Section 454 I.P.C.

In brief, the facts of the case leading to the prosecution of the accused were as under: -

Smt. Ram Kali, complainant was married to one Chakku Lal and out of this wedlock, one son and one daughter were born. Chakku Lal expired in the year 1972. He owned about 2 acres of agricultural land. The accused were not in favour of second marriage by Smt. Ram Kali and wanted to grab the land left by her husband and as such, they used to harass the lady.

On 2.9.1977, at about 6.30 a.m. all the seven accused broke open the lock of the house of Smt. Ram Kali and took away two bags of wheat, utensils and some silver and golden ornaments kept in the house. Smt. Ram Kali saw the accused taking away the articles. Her co-villagers Dhani Ram, Laturi Singh and Mathura Singh also saw the incident. She tried to lodge a report at the Police Station but did not succeed. On third day on the intervention of the Circle Officer, a case was registered at the Police Station. Ultimately, she filed a complaint.

All the seven accused, namely, Sone Lal, Pyare Lal, Sukh Basi, Daya Ram, Ram Pati, Phool Singh and Nathoo were charged under Section 454 I.P.C. on 4.9.1978 to which they pleaded not guilty.

The complainant in support of her case, examined herself as P.W. 1, Laturi Singh as P.W. 2, Ram Chandra as P.W. 3 and constable Kunwarpal Singh as P.W. 4.

The accused in their statements recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. totally denied all accusations and pleaded that Smt. Ram Kali was married  to Chakku Lal, brother of Sone Lal and Pyare Lal and after his death, she married with Dhani Ram. Since a report was lodged by Pyare Lal, she was annoyed and falsely implicated the accused.

The accused examined one Naththu Singh in their defence.

After having considered the entire evidence on record led by the parties, learned Magistrate found that the complainant had not established her case against any of the accused beyond all shadow of doubt. Consequently, he acquitted all the accused of the charge framed against them. Hence this appeal.

I have heard Sri R.K. Rathore, learned counsel for the accused-respondents at length. None has turned up to press this appeal on behalf of the complainant. It is noteworthy that after admission of this appeal on 17.12.1981, none appeared on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal.

I have gone through the record carefully and heard learned counsel for the accused-respondents. It is well settled that in criminal trial burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In the instant case, lady supported her allegations and testified that on the impugned date at about 6.30 a.m. she was present in her house along with her second husband Dhani Ram. All the seven accused arrived there and after breaking open the lock of the room entered into her house and took away two bags of wheat, ornaments and utensils. On her raising alarm, Mathura Singh, Suchai, Laturi Singh and Ram Chandra arrived there and forbade the accused.

P.W. 2 Laturi Singh who is said to be an eyewitness supported the prosecution version half-heartedly and disclosed in clear words that he did not know Smt. Ram Kali. He changed his version and stated that he knew Ram Kali. In further cross-examination, witness gave out that he reached there on hearing hue and cry of the complainant that accused were taking away the articles from her house after breaking open the lock. It means the witness did not see accused committing theft. When the court asked Laturi Singh to identify Sone Lal in court, he placed his hand on accused Naththu Ram. Thus, I find that he was rightly disbelieved by the court below. Besides Laturi Singh is a resident of village Lalapur. Thus, he appears to be a chance witness.

P.W. 3 Ram Chandra is elder brother of Dhani Ram, who is second husband of Smt. Ram Kali. He, therefore, come in the category of highly interested witness. According to him, Laturi Singh arrived at the scene of incident about 30 minutes prior to the incident and stayed there for more than half-an-hour. This statement of Ram Chandra is totally contradictory to the statement of Laturi Singh, who disclosed in clear words that he reached the scene of incident on hearing the hue and cry raised by the lady at about 6.30 a.m.

P.W. 4 Constable Kunwarpal Singh is a formal witness and proved the chik report.

In view of the aforesaid scrutiny of the evidence on record, led by the parties, I find that the learned Magistrate committed no illegality in appraisal of the evidence. He was wholly justified in rejecting the testimony of Ram Chandra as well as Laturi Singh. It is true that a finding of conviction may be recorded on the basis of solitary testimony of a witness provided his testimony is found to be trustworthy. In the instant case, the parties were having strained relations prior to the incident in question. I am, therefore, unable to place reliance on the solitary testimony of the lady. In my opinion, there is no good ground to interfere with the finding of the lower court. It is, therefore, held that this appeal  lacks merit and is liable tobe dismissed.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The impugned judgment and order are hereby upheld.

Dated: 9.11.2005

SU.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.