State of U.P. vs Gaya Ram

Heard learned Counsel for the State and perused the records.

This leave to appeal arises out of the judgment dated 7.9.1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in S.T. Nos. 239 of 1988 recording acquittal of accused-respondents of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 364, 323, 326, 302 and 201 I.P.C.

It appears from the prosecution case that the complaint was lodged by one Om Prakash, who was residing with his father Ram Dularey and other family members at village Mastipur, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow. His uncle Gaya Prasad was also staying in the same village with his family. Relations of his father with his uncle were strained over some dispute relating to a house and due to that enmity accused-respondents had falsely implicated Rajendra Kumar and Ashok Kumar real brothers of the complainant on 19.3.1987. On 20.3.1987 at about 4 a.m., being armed with deadly weapons accused-respondents committed house trespass and caused injuries to Ram Dulare, his wife Smt. Rama Devi and daughter-in-law Smt. Munni Devi. They also abducted Ram Dulare in order to commit his murder and subsequently committed his murder. In support of the prosecution case, two eye witnesses, namely, Smt. Munni Davi P.W.1 and Smt. Rama Devi P.W.2 were examined. In their testimonies, they were found to have given a version all together different from the prosecution case as set up in the F.I.R.

Accordingly the trial court noticed that the incident did not take place in the manner as indicated in the F.I.R., apart from noticing other serious contradictions also in their statements. Besides, the presence of Munni Devi P.W.1 was also doubted for the reason that her name did not find mention in the F.I.R. as also in the telegram sent by Om Prakash to the police station and the injuries of Smt. Munni Devi P.W.1 were examined after a gap of three days on 23.3.1987. Even the presence of Smt. Rama Devi P.W.2 has also been disbelieved.

In view of the aforesaid reasons given by the trial court while recording acquittal and also for the fact that in a catena of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, it has been held that if on appreciation of evidence, two views are possible, the view taken by lower court in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the accused should be taken as the probable and reasonable view.

Hence, this application for leave to appeal is dismissed.