State of U.P. vs Ram Bali and Others

This application for leave to appeal of 1987 has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 21.10.1986 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in S.T. No. 1 of 1985 u/s 307/34 I.P.C. recording acquittal of the accused-respondents (herein) while convicting co-accused Ram Surat Verma under the same charge.

We have heard learned Counsel for State and perused the records.

It appears that a written report was lodged by complainant Ram Suphal Verma at 19.30 hours on September 15, 1983 at police station Gosainganj with the allegation that he had earlier suffered several attempts on his life which had continued further being caused by and at the instance of co-villager Ram Lakhan Verma with whom he was at litigating terms. He also alleged that Ram Lakhan Verma for that purpose had been even harbouring some outlaws. On the date of incident i.e. 15.09.1983, when the complainant while returning from Sultanpur unboarded the bus on a cross road, all the three accused-respondents along with convict Ram Surat Verma and his deceased companion Nand Lal were noticed present there. Having noticed them, the complainant started rushing to his house. He was accompanied by other villagers who had met him on the way. However, on the way accused Ram Surat Verma exhorted other co-accused to assault complainant Ram Suphal Verma whereupon accused Nand Lal (since dead) opened fire from a country made pistol at about 4.30 p.m. As a result, the complainant sustained injury on his back. He also saw that other accused persons were also rushing with arms like Banka in order to assault him. Deceased-accused Nand Lal made another attempt to open fire. However, the complainant raised alarms which attracted the people accompanying him. They rushed to his rescue and also chased accused Nand Lal. They some how managed to overpower him and then beat him to death. On investigation of the case, a challan was put up against accused Ram Surat Verma and the acquitted accused-respondents (herein) and finally it ended in conviction of only Ram Surat Verma. The acquittal of co-accused-respondents has been challenged in this appeal, primarily on the grounds that a challan had been put up with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. and further that these two accused-respondents were present on the spot, therefore, on the same set of evidence if accused Ram Surat Verma was convicted, the co-accused did not deserve acquittal.

Smt. Shikha Sinha, learned State Counsel while making the aforesaid submission also contended that the acquittal of the co-accused-respondents has resulted from a misreading of evidence.

On a careful consideration of submissions of learned Counsel and perusal of records, we notice that the parties were inimically disposed towards each other due to past and pending criminal and civil litigation between them inasmuch as in one case the complainant had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on a complaint lodged by accused Ram Surat Verma. The identity of the accused-respondents was not found established from the evidence led by the prosecution and, as stated by complainant in his testimony, he had identified the accused-respondents only on the basis that he had seen them visiting the house of accused Ram Surat Verma. Besides, it is also appears that he was given the names of accused-respondents by some other persons, who were not even produced in witness-box.

In view of dearth of cogent evidence and also in the wake of several judgments of the Supreme Court laying down guidelines for interference by appellate courts with the judgments of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Thus, the view taken by the trial court while recording acquittal of accused-respondents, is found to be the reasonable and probable view in the facts and circumstances of this case.

This leave to appeal is thus rejected.