STATE OF U.P. Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though the case is called out in the revised list learned Counsel for the revisionist did not appear. Heard Sri M.C. Joshi learned AGA for the appellant and Sri L.P. Singh and Sri Sameer Garg for the accused respondent and perused the trial Court judgment and evidence of the witnesses. This Government Appeal and con­nected Criminal Revision have been pre­ferred against the order of acquittal of the respondent Sanjiv Kumar Sharma under sections 323, 325, 394, 307 and 506 IPC passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-17 Bulandshahar dated 28.5.2003.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 12.7.1999 at about 9.00 a.m. when the in­formant Cyan Dev Prajapati who worked as a Fitter in 'Vivid Chem Pvt. Ltd.' Sikan-drabad reached the factory gate, he was assaulted by the Manager Sanjiv Kumar Sharma and three others with hockeys. One of the accused persons fired on him with a country made pistol which missed him. On his cries Sanjai and Raj Singh reached the spot. The accused also looted his wrist watch and relieved him of Rs. 65. His re­port was not taken down by the police of Sikandrabad. Thereafter the injured was medically examined but the report was still not written. On 17.7.1999 the matter was reported to the SSP, Bulandshahar where­upon the case was registered on 21.7.1999 the case Crime No. 281 of 1999 at P.S. Si­kandrabad against the accused respondent and three others.

(3.) IT is argued by learned AGA that the judgment of acquittal was miscon­ceived in the eye of law as Cyan Deo was an injured witness who was medically ex­amined promptly after the incident. Even if the other witness Sanjai Mati is considered as a chance and interested witness, Gy-andeo should not have been disbelieved. As the informant was admittedly a Ma-jdoor leader, he was assaulted in connec­tion with labour demands which were be­ing raisind by him. There was no reason for him to have falsely implicated the respon­dent who was the manager. The delay in registration of the case was not very mate­rial as the police did not take down his FIR, hence the injured informant had no option but to approach the SSP and thereafter to lodge the complaint. Learned Counsel for the accused appel­lant however, argued that a final report was submitted in this case, subsequently a complaint was filed and then the police case and complaint case were combined under section 210 Cr.P.C. One other wit­ness who was also named in the FIR was not examined. Sanjai P.W.2, was closely connected with the informant and resided with him and he claims to have been pres­ent at the place and time of incident only because he was proceeding to his village Jokhabad. He was thus clearly a chance witness at that spot. No other witness ei­ther from the factory or from the adjoining factories of which the injured informant was the branch trade union secretary has come forward to support his version. There was no reason for the informant having assaulted him on the date and time in question.