Shyam Lal vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Bharat Bhushan, J.—The applicant-informant by means of this application is seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.3.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Jaunpur in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2008 (Akbar and others Vs State and another), whereby the appeal filed by the accused has been allowed and the order dated 22.7.2008 of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court has been set aside and the accused respondents No. 2 to 9 were acquitted for the offence of Section 429 IPC.

Heard Mr. P. K. Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the applicant and perused the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded by the appellate court is against the evidence on record. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the appellate court has committed a patent error of law and ignored the material evidence on record while holding that the conviction order passed by the learned Magistrate is not justifiable in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that informant had filed an application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging therein that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and has been allotted lease of a pond in village Nihalapur and has been allowed fisheries rights over the said pond. It is further alleged that the respondents accused are continuously flowing the waste water of their house in the said pond as a result of which the fishes of the pond died and the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 2000/-. The complainant requested the police authorities to take action but of no avail and thereafter present application u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant, which was treated as private complaint, and the Learned Magistrate after taking evidence of complainant and his witnesses summoned the accused to face the trial for the offence under Sections 429, 504 ,506 IPC. After the evidence u/s. 244 Cr.P.C., the charges were framed against the accused under aforesaid sections and they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused were examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and in their defence they had examined Mazeed in their defence. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence found that the accused persons are guilty only for the offence u/s 429 IPC and accordingly convicted them u/s. 429 IPC and sentenced each of them to under go one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation vide order dated 22.7.2008. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction, accused preferred Criminal Appeal in the Court of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Jaunpur which was allowed and the order of the trial court was set aside and all the accused were acquitted vide order dated 31.3.2014, hence the informant is seeking Special Leave to appeal to prefer the present criminal appeal before this Court.

Perusal of the impugned judgment of the appellate Court clearly indicates that the appellate court has rightly assessed the evidence on record and found the story highly suspicious and has rightly concluded that it is not evident as to whose waste water caused the death of fishes of the pond and no reason or specific evidence has been produced by the prosecution as to how the fishes died and the accused persons cannot be held guilty for the offence of committing mischief by poisoning the fishes as the waste materials of whole of the vicinity was flowing into the said pond and there is also no report of the concerned District fisheries Officials and in absence of any specific evidence to determine the cause of death of fishes, the appellate court had rightly acquitted the accused respondents.

Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the impugned judgment suffers from any infirmity or illegality or perversity. I do not find any compelling reason to upset the acquittal recorded by the appellate court. In the circumstances, no interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is warranted.

Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and the application is dismissed.