The State vs Chhotkannu Singh

This application for leave to appeal of 1989 arises out of a judgment dated 6.9.1988 passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, in Sessions Trial Nos. 336 of 1987, under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. recording acquittal of accused-respondent Chhotkaunu.

We have heard learned State Counsel and perused the records.

Learned Counsel submitted that though injured witness Akbar received gun shot injuries in his thigh, which were specifically attributed to the accused respondent but the trial court has recorded the acquittal on a misreading of the evidence.

We have carefully considered the submissions of learned State Counsel and we notice that the reasons recorded by the trial court in reaching the conclusion of acquittal do not appear to be perverse and infirm. The trial court has rightly held that as the incident took place at two stages, the charge u/s 307/34 I.P.C. in respect of Chhotkaunu was incomplete. The trial court has also held that looking to the dimensions of the pellets injuries noticed on the person of Akbar, it can be held that the gunshot was fired from a distance and thus it was not possible to identify the author of the injury. That apart, there was no radiological examination to find out as to whether any pellet remained embedded in the body of Akbar. Besides, it is also alleged that accused-respondent Chhotkaunu fired the gunshot from the backside, whereas the injury was received on the front portion of thigh of the injured.

In view of all the aforesaid reasons, the trial court has rightly recorded the acquittal and we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. 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 in favour of the accused by lower court in the facts and circumstances of the case should be taken as the probable and reasonable view.

Hence, this application for leave to appeal is dismissed.