Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24011 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3417 of 2025 Applicant :- Om Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Prakash,Ashutosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Surya Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. 2. In the light of proposed order notice to opposite parties is dispensed with. 3. By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 of BNSS, the applicant has assailed the order dated 07.06.2024, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, wherein he has rejected the protest petition preferred by the applicant against the final report submitted by the Police in Case Crime No. 95 of 2015, under Section 302 IPC. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in pursuance to the aforesaid first information report, a final report was submitted by the Police, against which the applicant has submitted protest petition. The trial Court considered the protest petition and treated the same as complaint case and conducted inquiry by recording statements of witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. During the said inquiry, it was found that there was evidence of three witnesses who had given evidence that deceased was seen in the company of the accused persons, but found that there were discrepancies in the timing, and hence rejected the complaint. 5. The revisional Court also has dismissed the revision on the same grounds. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there was sufficient evidence placed before the trial Court in the form of statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. by which complicity of the accused was clearly made out. It is submitted that merely because there is slight discrepancy in the timing of the three witnesses, could not be sole ground for rejecting the complaint, at this stage. These are the issues which can be looked into at the stage of trial and accordingly the trial Court have arbitrarily rejected the protest petition of the applicant. 7. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has opposed the application and has supported the impugned order by submitting that there is no infirmity in the same and the matter needs no interference by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The first information report was lodged on 07.02.2015 by the applicant himself wherein the accused have been named on the basis of the incident which took place 5-6 days prior and even the applicant did not name any of the accused to be responsible for the incident occurring in the night of 6-7.02.2015. In the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Om Prakash - complainant has narrated the incident but clearly stated that he was not eye witness of the said incident. PW-1 Shail Kumar in his statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has stated that at 1.00PM he has seen the accused persons coming from the house of deceased Lallu Ram and were armed. He is also not eye witness of the incident. While lastly PW-2 Anshu Devi claims to have seen the accused at 10.00PM near the house of Shiv Prasad. 10. It is only three statements which have been duly considered by the trial Court and found that in neither of the three statements, the accused persons were seen in the company of the deceased and accordingly, it is not the last seen evidence, on the basis of which any conviction can be sustained, at best even if the three statements are considered to be true and correct, only indicates that the accused were seen in the close proximity of the site of occurrence. 11. Apart from the above, various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court unequivocally lay down that conviction is made on the basis of circumstantial evidence, quality of witnesses has to be seen and chain of events have to be linked and complete, before any such conviction is sustained. 12. In the present case, there is large difference in timing when the prosecution witnesses Om Prakash, Shail Kumar and Anshu Devi have seen the accused in the close proximity of the site of occurrence. It is quite improbable that persons who were heavily armed would remain at the site of incident for nearly three hours. 13. This Court has perused the order of trial Court as well as revisional Court. Adequate reasons have been given for not proceeding with the complaint. This Court do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders necessitating interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 480 Cr.P.C. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court do not find any merit in the present application and is accordingly rejected. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench