STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. IDDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents, dated 15.1.2003, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 338 of 1996. The said trial pertains to police station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar wherein the accused Iddu, Ahsan and Meharban, all S/o Manjur, were tried for the offences u/s. 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC r/w section 3(10) of SC/ST Act. Learned Trial Judge did not find any of the offences made out against the accused persons, so he acquitted them. The genesis of the prosecution case was that informant Sattu, being a member of scheduled caste category, was engaged in cleaning the dirt/excreta of the respondents. In lieu thereof, they used to give him 1 quintal of food grains per annum. When the respondents did not give the said quantity of food grains to him, he stopped to work. This stopping of work by complainant made the respondents annoyed and on 14.5.1995 at about 7 A.M., they entered in his house, abusing him with caste indicative words, beat him with Lathi, baton as well as with knife. Complainant got himself medically examined at 10 AM of the same day but there is nothing on record that he reported the matter to the police station seeking action against the respondents. However, he has mentioned in the application moved to Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police on 12.6.1995 that he approached to the police station for legal action but nothing was done.

(2.) I have heard learned State counsel nay learned counsel on behalf of the respondents. The entire judgment was read over before this Court. On going through the said judgment, it is ample clear that informant has not offered any plausible explanation as to why he did not reach to the police station with the prayer seeking some legal action against the respondents. Besides, the application to the Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police was moved by him after almost a month of the incident wherefor the delay has not sufficiently been explained by the complainant. Moreover, the evidence reveals that the application was got drafted by him through a local advocate Sri Brahm Singh. Therefore, it is amply clear that the incident in the said application was not narrated in actuality.

(3.) ON the grounds, as have been stated above, the Court finds that the judgment and order, under challenge, does not call for any interference. I have not been persuaded to take a different view than what has been taken by the court below in passing the judgment and order of acquittal of respondents. The government appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the record be sent to the court concerned.