State of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Pal and Another

K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.—These appeals are filed by the State of U.P, against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court. The Respondents/accused were convicted u/s 302 and 307/34 IPC and were sentenced to imprisonment for life and five years R.I. respectively by the trial court. The other co-accused were acquitted by the trial court. The two convicted accused filed two separate appeals in the High Court. The State also filed an appeal against the order of acquittal of the other accused. The High Court allowed the appeals filed by the accused and acquitted them and dismissed the appeal filed by the State. Hence the present appeals.

The prosecution case is that Goojars of village Sakatpur belong to the parry of the accused. Dundi, the deceased was son of PW l the complainant Dundi was beaten by the Goojars belonging to the party of the accused and there was a prosecution case which ended in acquittal. On April 26, 1973 in the morning when Dundi and Balbir passed through the lane of Dhimars, a dog belonging to the accused barked at them. Balbir wielded his danda at the dog and that lead to a wrangle between the accused and the deceased. But they were separated. On the same day at about 11 a.m. when PW I was sitting in the chabutra of Kunwar Sen along with PW 3 the six accused including the two Respondents herein armed with guns, pistols and other weapons challenged the deceased and PWL Lalu accused feed at Dundi as a result of which he fell dead and the other amused Ram Pal fired a shot which struck PW 2. An F.I.R. was lodged against all the accused and they were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302, 307 and 307/149 IPC. The accused pleaded that Umesh Chand alias Lalu while going from his field to his khaliyan, passed besides the Pakar tree, where the deceased was sitting with a lathi in his hand and the deceased seeing him lathered 10 to 12 blows on Lalu. He examined DWI and two others D Ws. The Doctor DWI found as many as 12 injuries on the accused. As already mentioned, the trial court convicted only two accused and acquitted the rest and the High Court acquitted those two convicted accused also. The case rested mainly on the evidence of PW l and PW 2. The High Court has considered the evidence of these two witnesses in detail. The High Court also pointed out that the prosecution did not examine one other injured witness who is an independent witness. Balbir Singh, was, however, examined as CWI. After discussing the evidence of CW l as well as PW l and PW 2 and after pointing out several infirmities, the High Court was not prepared to place any reliance on the evidence of PW l and PW 2. We have gone through the evidence of PW l and PW 2 and the judgment of the High Court and we are of the view that the reasons given by the High Court for rejecting their evidence are quite sound. We see no grounds to interfere. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.

Appeals dismissed.