SWAMIDEEN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The application for leave to appeal under Sec. 378(4) Crimial P.C. has been moved for permission to file appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2016 passed by Special Judge (D.A.A.), Hamirpur in complaint case no.54 of 2014 (Swamideen Vs. Drag Pal Singh), under sections 392 and 506 IPC, P.S. Rath, District Hamirpur, acquitting the sole accused-respondent Drag Pal Singh.

(3.) Learned counsel for complainant-appellant contended that on 13.8.2010 at about 9:00 a.m., he was going to Bank by his bicycle to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,000.00, the loan sanctioned to him and on way accused-respondent Drag Pal Singh met him and asked him on which he told the accused-respondent Drag Pal Singh that he is going to withdraw the money; that at Bank, he was given only Rs.22,000.00 and at about 5:00 p.m. when he was returning back to home by putting the money in right pocket of his Pant and reached outside the village, at bridge of the canal, the accused-respondent met him with rifle and after putting his rifle on his chest and abusing him taken out the sum of Rs.22,000.00 from right pocket of his Pant and threatened him of life, in case, he discloses the incident to anybody; that on application given by appellant on 14.8.2010 to Inspector of Police Station Rath, no action was taken and so he moved an application under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C. in which, by order of the Magistrate case crime no.1140 of 2013 was registered and upon investigation, final report was submitted; that the first informant-appellant filed protest petition against the final report, which was treated as complaint and after recording the statements under sections 200 and 202 Crimial P.C., process was issued against the accused-respondent under Sec. 204 Crimial P.C. for trial under sections 392 and 506 IPC; that in order to prove his case, the complainant appellant produced himself as P.W.1 and eye witnesses Raghuraj Singh and Bhanu Pratap Singh, as P.W.2 and P.W.3, respectively; that the trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in disbelieving the prosecution evidence and acquitting the accused-respondent by giving him benefit of doubt; that it is wrong to say that the F.I.R./complaint was lodged against the respondent on account of any old enmity; that the defence witness Mahesh is real brother of complainant-appellant and has given evidence against the complainant on account of differences, due to property dispute between the two brothers.