State of U.P. vs Ram Asrey and Others

This application for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment dated 28.9.1988 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IVth, Faizabad in Session Trial Nos. 151 of 1986 under Sections 147, 148,307 read with 149 I.P.C. recording acquittal of accused respondents.

The incident is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 23/24.1.1982, wherein as per prosecution case the accused persons hurled hand grenades on the complainant side and in the process one of their companions suffered burns to the extent that he could not be identified. We have heard learned Counsel for State.

Learned Counsel submits that though the incident took place in the night but the injured witnesses have given the names of accused persons, which also find mention in the F.I.R. Learned Counsel also submitted that the dead person had been carried along by the accused-respondents and hence dead body was mutilated. That is why it was not possible to identify the dead body. Learned Counsel further submitted that though the enmity is double edged weapon, but for the same reason the accused could have committed the offence.

On a careful scrutiny of trial court judgment and consideration of submissions of learned State Counsel, we notice that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, namely, Ram Lal (P.W.1), Lallu (P.W.2) and Indrajeet (P.W.3) have been appreciated cautiously and carefully and only then the trial court has believed in the defence version that it was only the dead person, who had been throwing hand grenades in the incident of dacoity and in the process suffered the explosive injuries. However, on account of the past enmity the accused respondents were implicated in the case only on the ground of suspicion.

We do not find any infirmity in the trial court judgment for the reason that the enmity is double edged weapon, and on a careful appreciation of evidence a doubt was created in the mind of trial court which as per settled principles of law has caused the Court to grant benefits of doubt in favour of the accused-respondents. Besides, though the witnesses also suffered injuries, in the incident, but it was 11.00 O''clock in the winter night of January month, and the prosecution version that the witnesses had identified the accused in lantern as they were sleeping out side thus seems to be improbable for the reason that it is not expected of any person during winter of January month to sleep outside. In addition to that, the witnesses, who were produced in Court, were only interested witnesses and their evidence has thus been rightly discarded in the back ground of longstanding enmity between the parties.

In the premise discussed hereinabove, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of trial court. Moreover, 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.