State of U.P. vs Medi Lal and Others

Heard learned Counsel for the State.

This application for leave to appeal u/s 378(3) Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved by the State against the judgment of acquittal of accused-Respondents in Sessions Trial No. 569 of 2000 arising out of Case Crime No. 220 of 2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao, on 30.06.2005 whereby acquitting the accused-Respondents of the charge levelled against them u/s 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Makhi, District Unnao.

We have gone through the judgment of the court below as well as lower court record.

It comes out that one Sudama wife of PW-5, Jagannath Vishwakarma, was found dead in the night of 9/10th August, 2000 of which the F.I.R. was lodged by village Chowkidar on the next day i.e. 10th August, 2000 at 1.30 p.m.against unknown persons. It comes out that during course of investigation name of the accused-Respondents came into light.

The prosecution to prove its case produced PW-5, the husband of deceased namely, Jagannath Vishwakarma and two nephews of the deceased namely Surendra, PW-6 and Chhotey Lal, PW-7. Surendra, PW-6 and Chhotey Lal, PW-7 are said to be eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. They had deposed of having seen the occurrence to the effect that Medi Lal was chopping off the deceased with Gandasa while Lallu Badhai and Putan Bajpai had caught hold of the deceased in the night of 9/10th August, 2000.

However, they did not tell to anybody about this incident and went to Kanpur where husband of deceased was residing and informed him in the night itself.

PW-5, Jagannath Vishwakarma, has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was informed by PW-6 and PW-7 in the night and then he proceeded to his village in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. and reached village at about 2.00 p.m. The testimony of two eye witnesses as it comes out from the judgment has been totally discarded mainly on the basis that both PW-6 and PW-7 are said to be interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased.

The prosecution case on the basis of the testimony of two eye witnesses, who had seen the occurrence, cannot be discarded, since they being the chance witnesses of the occurrence.

We find some substance in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the State.

Accordingly leave to appeal is granted.

Admit.

Let bailable warrants of arrest be issued against the accused-Respondents for their arrest fixing their attendance before this Court on 22.09.2011.