State of U.P. Vs. Ram Pal & etc.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos.434-35 of 1980
Petitioner: State of U.P.
Respondent: Ram Pal & etc.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos.434-35 of 1980
Judges: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY & G.N. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 03, 1993
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Acquittal
Acquittal by High Court – High Court noticed several infirmities and refused to place reliance on the evidence of the witnesses – Reasons given for rejecting the evidence being sound, appeals dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. :
1. These appeals are filed by the State of U.P. against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. The respondents-accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 307/34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and five years’ R.I. respectively by the trial court. The other co-accused were acquitted by the trial court. The two convicted accused filed two separate appeals in the High Court. The State also filed an appeal against the order of acquittal of the other accused. The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused and acquitted them and dismissed the appeal filed by the State. Hence the present appeals.
2. The prosecution case is that Goojars of Village Sakatpur belong to the party of the accused. Dundi, the deceased was son of P.W.1 the complainant. Dundi was beaten by the Goojars belonging to the party of the accused and there was a prosecution case which ended in acquittal. On 26.4.73 in the morning when Dundi and Balbir passed through the lane of Dhimars, a dog belonging to the accused barked at them. Balbir wielded his danda at the dog and that led to a wrangle between the accused and the deceased. But they were separated. On the same day at about 11 A.M. when P.W.1 was sitting in the chabutra of Kunwar Sen alongwith P.W.3, the six accused including the two respondents herein armed with guns, pistols and other weapons challenged the deceased and P.W.1. Lalu accused fired at Dundi as a result of which he fell dead and the other accused Ram Pal fired a shot which struck P.W.2. An F.I.R. was lodged against all the accused and they were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302, 307 and 307/149 I.P.C. The accused pleaded that Umesh Chand alias Lalu while going from his field to his Khaliyan, passed besides the Pakar tree, where the deceased was sitting with a lathi in his hand and the deceased seeing him, inflicted 10 or 12 blows on Lalu. He examined D.W.1 and two other D.Ws. The Doctor D.W.1 found as many as 12 injuries on the accused. As already mentioned, the trial court convicted only two accused and acquitted the rest and the High Court acquitted those two convicted accused also. The case rested mainly on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The High Court has considered the evidence of these two witnesses in detail. The High Court also pointed out that the prosecution did not examine one another injured witness which is an independent witness. Balbir Singh, was, however, examined as C.W.1. After discussing the evidence of C.W.1 as well as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and after pointing out several infirmities, the High Court was not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. We have gone through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the judgment of the High Court and we are of the view that the reasons given by the High Court rejecting their evidence are quite sound. We see no grounds to interfere. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
1. These appeals are filed by the State of U.P. against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. The respondents-accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 307/34 I.P.C. and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and five years’ R.I. respectively by the trial court. The other co-accused were acquitted by the trial court. The two convicted accused filed two separate appeals in the High Court. The State also filed an appeal against the order of acquittal of the other accused. The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused and acquitted them and dismissed the appeal filed by the State. Hence the present appeals.
2. The prosecution case is that Goojars of Village Sakatpur belong to the party of the accused. Dundi, the deceased was son of P.W.1 the complainant. Dundi was beaten by the Goojars belonging to the party of the accused and there was a prosecution case which ended in acquittal. On 26.4.73 in the morning when Dundi and Balbir passed through the lane of Dhimars, a dog belonging to the accused barked at them. Balbir wielded his danda at the dog and that led to a wrangle between the accused and the deceased. But they were separated. On the same day at about 11 A.M. when P.W.1 was sitting in the chabutra of Kunwar Sen alongwith P.W.3, the six accused including the two respondents herein armed with guns, pistols and other weapons challenged the deceased and P.W.1. Lalu accused fired at Dundi as a result of which he fell dead and the other accused Ram Pal fired a shot which struck P.W.2. An F.I.R. was lodged against all the accused and they were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302, 307 and 307/149 I.P.C. The accused pleaded that Umesh Chand alias Lalu while going from his field to his Khaliyan, passed besides the Pakar tree, where the deceased was sitting with a lathi in his hand and the deceased seeing him, inflicted 10 or 12 blows on Lalu. He examined D.W.1 and two other D.Ws. The Doctor D.W.1 found as many as 12 injuries on the accused. As already mentioned, the trial court convicted only two accused and acquitted the rest and the High Court acquitted those two convicted accused also. The case rested mainly on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The High Court has considered the evidence of these two witnesses in detail. The High Court also pointed out that the prosecution did not examine one another injured witness which is an independent witness. Balbir Singh, was, however, examined as C.W.1. After discussing the evidence of C.W.1 as well as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and after pointing out several infirmities, the High Court was not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. We have gone through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the judgment of the High Court and we are of the view that the reasons given by the High Court rejecting their evidence are quite sound. We see no grounds to interfere. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
