STATE OF U.P. Vs. SHAHID AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Government Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge (Special), Baghpat dated 19.3.2013 acquitting the 22 accused respondents, under Sections 147/148/149/323/336/307/427/188/332/353, I.P.C. and 3(1)(xii), S.C./S.T. Act and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.

(2.) LEARNED A.G.A. submitted that in this case there were six injured persons and that the trial court had acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds, that P.W. 4 R.R. Kathairiya who was leading the group of policemen did not receive any injury and secondly the observation of the doctor that the said injuries could be self inflicted had been given importance. Even if these two reasons for recording acquittal of the accused -respondents are not weighty per se, but we find that the trial court has given a number of sound reasons for directing the acquittal of the 22 accused persons. The trial court has specifically highlighted in the judgment that the witnesses were unable to state as to which of the accused persons were carrying what weapons, or who had thrown the brick -bats or damaged the public property, the particulars of the public property damaged, who in the crowd had used caste derogatory words. The witnesses could not even identify the accused persons. The trial court further observed that between 500 to 600 people were present who formed the crowd. The witnesses had conceded that the accused persons who tried to secure the release of Jagdish did not engage in brick batting, nor were they his relations. Some of the accused persons belonged to the village but other accused did not even belong to his village. The Bilal Bus Station is located 400 metres from the police station where a small market is held, and where people of 10 villages assemble who belong to different castes and villages, and who appear to have participated in this incident. It was not even made clear by the witnesses whether the accused persons has been caught at the police station or at the bus station. The doctor has found only simple injuries on all the six police constables, and only one injury of constable Harishchand was kept under observation. Apart from the ambiguity and lack of clarity of the evidence we find that the accused persons have already faced trial for a prolonged period of time, as the incident had taken place 13 years ago. In these circumstances we see no illegality on part of the trial Judge in acquitting the accused persons on the basis of the wavering and unreliable evidence, by which we are unable to distinguish the case of the appellants who were rounded up and arrested by the police and the 500 or more persons who were protesting against the police for wrongfully arresting Jagdish for whose release the crowd was clamoring. This appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed summarily, itself without even calling for the record, because we find no perversity or illegality in the order, and we order accordingly.

(3.) WE had, therefore, summoned the Government Advocate and questioned him as to how this appeal had been filed inspite of our aforesaid directions in the earlier Government appeals mentioned hereinabove and the G.O. issued by the State. However, the learned G.A. submitted that once a recommendation goes from his office that there is no merit in a proposed Government appeal, when no reply is received from the State, he has no option but to file the Government appeal. We, therefore, direct the Government advocate to carefully examine in future whether the proposed appeal has any merit, in accordance with the G.O. dated 13.4.2012. This practice has to be followed in all cases. We make it clear that the Government Advocate is not expected to file the Government appeal, if there is no reply from the Government, once he sends his opinion that filing of a Government appeal in a particular case is not justified. Only if the Government insists by written directions that the Government Advocate must proceed with filing of the Government appeal, despite the negative opinion of the G.A. the Government appeal may be filed, subject to any observations that this Court may then make in the matter. Copy of the order be given to the learned G.A./A.G.A. for compliance and for forwarding to the LR/Secretary U.P. for compliance and Information.