State of U.P. vs Satya Deo and Another

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The present appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment of acquittal.

The accused persons were charged for an offence u/s 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Upon trial and by a detailed judgment of the trial court dated 1st June, 2002, all the accused were acquitted of the charge. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 24th November, 2004, sustained the order of acquittal giving rise to the present appeal.

The contention raised on behalf of the State is that the High Court has fallen in error of law and failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective. There was sufficient ocular and documentary evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and as such the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside.

The trial court noticed that it was not safe to rely upon the statement of Dalchand (PW1) because firstly, he had given a different place of occurrence than the place of occurrence identified by the other prosecution witnesses; and secondly, according to this witness, the accused was carrying a lathi and had given a lathi blow on the body of the deceased but no such injury was actually found on the person of the deceased as per the medical evidence.

According to the statement of Dr. Yashwant Singh (PW4) all the injuries were inflicted with a sharp edged weapon and were fresh. All injuries were treated to be grave except injury No. 3, as described in his report (Ex. Ka2). It was also noticed by the trial court that two witnesses namely Laxmi Narain (PW2) and Teekam Chandra Giri (PW3) had not supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile.

In light of this evidence and record, it may not be appropriate for this Court to re-appreciate the entire evidence. Even if we were to re-appreciate the entire evidence, still it will be difficult for this Court to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Courts below, correctness of which is questioned before us.

According to the site plan Ex. Ka. 5 prepared by the investigating officer, the incident took place at point "A" which is Chhatra Pal's fields and not at the house of Laxmi Narain as stated by PW-1.

In other words, as is evident from the above discussion in the judgment of the trial court, there were serious contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses and even the documentary evidence prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation was not supported by its witnesses. Two witnesses have turned hostile. Keeping the entirety of the facts and circumstances in mind, the trial court acquitted the accused persons. The judgment of acquittal has been upheld by the High Court for valid and proper reasons. The High Court declined to grant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. We see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court.

In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.