STATE OF U.P. Vs. SHAHID AHMAD
LAWS(ALL)-2013-7-249
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 03,2013

STATE OF U.P. Appellant
VERSUS
Shahid Ahmad and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Amar Saran and Bachchoo Lal, JJ. - (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.
In this case, an F.I.R. was lodged on 18.6.2000 at 10:45 a.m. by R.R. Kathairiya S.O., P.S. Ramala, District Baghpat alleging that the police personnel had tried to disperse an unruly crowd of about 500 to 600 people assembled near the police station who were shouting slogans and using caste derogatory words against the S.O. They had also caused a traffic jam because they were seeking release of one Jagdish. When the crowd did not disperse despite orders then the police used tear gas and made a lathi charge against the crowd, but the crowd retaliated by throwing brick -bats at the police and had started using arms and destroying public property during the demonstration. Then the police had resorted to firing in the air, whereupon the crowd ran away in different directions. The Police arrested 25 persons. As three of the said persons had died, only 22 persons were tried and they have been acquitted by the impugned judgment.

(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.
However, before parting we need to reiterate our directions dated 8.2.2013 in Government Appeal No. 4376 of 2012 State v. Manoj, and in G.A. No. 2545 of 2012 by order dated 30.1.2012 to the effect that the State should desist from mechanically and routinely filing Government Appeals forwarded by the law department, without application of mind, wasting the precious time of this Court which is required to wade through the records and Judgments and to pass long orders when there is already a huge pendency of admitted Government, complainant's and convict's appeals. Consequent to our suggestion that the proposed Government appeals require to be vetted by the Government Advocate and the A.G.A. the Government had bought out a G.O. dated 13.4.2012 laying down a procedure for vetting of proposed Government Appeals by the Government Advocate and his panel. Like other cases against whose mechanical filing we had already commented adversely, we are again distressed by the filing of the present Government appeal, against the well reasoned order of acquittal on the ground of poor quality of evidence for connecting the accused with this minor crime, especially as we find that in grave matters the Government has been avoiding filing appeals, which have then brought to our notice by the victims or their relations by private appeals against acquittals under Section 372, Cr.P.C.

(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.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.