State of U.P v. Komal) and Sessions Case No

visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. He also prepared the site plan of the occurrence, which is (Ext. Ka.-4). Upon completion of investigation, Investigating Officer P.W.-6 ultimately submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 5.3.2020 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. (Ext. Ka.-5), whereunder the named accused Komal was charge sheeted under Sections 307, 323, 325, 326 and 504 I.P.C.

9. Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, 3 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 12.06.2020.

10. Investigating Officer subsequently submitted the supplementary charge sheet/police report dated 12.6.2020 (Ext. Ka.-6) where under named accused Omveer, Jeetu and Jaynarayan were charge sheeted under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 326/34 and 506 I.P.C.

11. Upon submission of aforementioned supplementary charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 12.06.2020.

12. Since offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 25.1.2021 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly above mentioned Sessions Case came to be registered.

13. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. Accordingly in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C., the concerned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused Omveer, Jaynarayan and Jeetu under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 326/34 and 506 I.P.C. vide framing of charge order dated 25.02.2021. The accused denied the charges so framed and demanded trial.

14. By order dated 25.02.2021, the concerned Sessions Judge also framed charges against accused Komal under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 325/34, 326/34 and 504 I.P.C.The accused Komal also denied the charges so framed against him and demanded trial.

15. On the request of prosecution both the aforementioned Sessions Trials were consolidated and Sessions Case No. 330 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Komal) was treated as the leading case.

16. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused has relied upon the following prosecution witnesses:- (i). PW-1, Kunwar Pal (first informant) (ii). PW-2, Praveen Kumar (injured witness) (iii). PW-3, Pawan Kumar (eye witness). 4 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 (iv). PW-4, Jayveer Singh (eye witness) (v). PW-5, Suresh Singh (Scribe of the F.IR.) (vi). PW-6, Sandeep Kumar ( Investigating Officer) (vii). P.W.7, Jagat Singh (Witness of recovery) (viii) P.W.-8, Dr. Saurabh Prakash Sharma (Doctor)

17. Apart from relying upon the depositions of aforementioned witnesses, prosecution has also relied upon the following documentary evidence: (i). Ext-Ka-1 Written Report proved by P.W.1, Kunwar Pal. (ii). Ext-Ka-2 Check F.I.R. proved by P.W.-5, Suresh Singh. (iii) Ext. Ka.-3, G. D. Report, proved by P.W.-5, Suresh Singh. (iv). Ext-Ka-4, Site Plan proved by P.W.-6, Sandeep Kumar. (v). Ext-Ka-5, charge sheet proved by P.W.-6, Sandeep Kumar. (vi). Ext-Ka-6, Charge Sheet/Police Report proved by P.W.-7, Jagat Singh. (vii). Ext-Ka-7, Medico Legal of injured Praveen Kumar proved by P.W.-8, Dr. Saurabh Prakash Sharma. (viii). Ext-Ka-8, Supplementary Medical report of injured Praveen Kumar proved by P.W.-8. Dr. Saurabh Prakash Sharma (ix) Ext-Ka-9, C. T. Scan Report (x) Ext-Ka-10, X-ray report.

18. Apart from the aforesaid documentary evidence, prosecution also relied upon certain material exhibits, which are tabulated herein under:- (i). M, Ext-Ka-1 to 3, C. T. Scan Plate proved by PW.-9. (ii). M, Ext-Ka-4, X-ray Report, proved by PW.-9.

19. After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse/incriminating 5 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were disclosed to the accused for their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the charges framed against them, by alleging that no occurrence as alleged took place, no firing was done from the roof top of the house of accused, the house of accused and Praveen injured is not in a straight line, there are two big trees in between, the house of Praveen is deep inside after the tree, if the firing is done from the roof top of the house of accused, no injury shall be caused/ near the house of Praveen, Praveen has not sustained any injury of bullet or pellets, a false F.I.R. has been registered, the Investigating Officer has conducted ex-parte investigation which is not impartial and thus submitted a false charge-sheet/police report, the injured has sustained injury in his eye accidentally on account of firing done by himself, the information regarding injured having sustained injuries was gathered from the nearby residents, the criminal prosecution of accused has been launched out of rivalry.

20. After the statements of the accused had been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused adduced D..W.-1, Babu Lal as a defence witness in proof of their innocence.

21. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record, the submissions urged on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, court below concluded that the following points of determination arise in the trial:- i. Whether the accused after entering into a quarrel with the informant Kumwar Pal with a common object fired gun shots to cause murder on the side of informant. ii. Whether on account of firing done by accused, the injured Praveen sustained injury in his eye on account of which it got shattered.

22. Court below thereafter evaluated the prosecution case in the light of evidence on record. On the basis of above, court below arrived at the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the very story, which it set out to prove. Resultantly, court below vide judgement dated 10.09.2025 acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them on the following grounds/reasons: a. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 6 NC413 No. 646 of 2025

28.11.2009 at 7.00 'O' clock. The F.I.R. in respect of same was lodged on

28.11.2009 at 17.33 hours. Considering the fact that there is an injured, therefore, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. or that the F.I.R. is not prompt is irrelevant. The F.I.R. cannot be doubted on the ground of delay. b- Both the parties admit that the injured P.W.2 Praveen sustained fire arm injury in his eye. The dispute between the parties is as to who had fired the gun shot. According to the prosecution the gun shot was fired by the accused whereas according to the accused, the injured Praveen himself appears to have fired a country made gun, which hit him in his eye. c. As per the medical evidence on record, i.e. Ext. Ka.-7, medical report and Ext. Ka.-8 supplementary medical report as well as the deposition of P.W.-8. Dr. Saurabh Prakash Misra,who proved the aforesaid reports has deposed that in the C.T. Scan of injured numerous metallic pellets were seen in the eye of injured. The injury sustained by the injured was serious. He has also detailed the injury. The injured was operated upon and two foreign metallic bodies were recovered from his left eye. His injured eye was completely damaged. As such, the injury sustained by the injured was serious. d. The medical evidence on record clearly points out that the injured P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar sustained firearm injury in his eye. The same is explicit from the documentary evidence i.e Ext. Ka.-7, medical report and Ext. Ka.-8 supplementary report of the injured P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar. e. Two metallic foreign bodies were recovered from the body of injured i.e. P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar and numerous metallic articles were seen in the left eye of injured. His eye was operated upon but his eye was totally damaged. f. According to the prosecution, the place from where the gun shots were fired is the house of accused Komal. The accused had fired the gun shot from the roof top of his house. It is the case of the prosecution that the bullet first struck the wall of the house of Ranveer, it then turned and hit the eye of Praveen. g. Since beginning, the prosecution has alleged two incidents and two places of occurrence. The first occurrence is said to have taken place near the field of first informant whereas the second occurrence is the act of accused firing gun shots, which hit the injured Praveen in his left eye. There is no description of the first occurrence. According to defence, there is no mention 7 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 of the place in the F.I.R. from where the gun shots were fired. Subsequently by taking legal aid it has been alleged that shots were fired from the roof top of the house of accused. Since FI.R. is not the encyclopedia of prosecution case, therefore, even if there is no recital in the F.I.R. regarding above, the same shall not be fatal for the prosecution. h. It is alleged by the prosecution that since the shot was fired from a distance therefore it got fragmented into small pieces and thereafter hit the eye of P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar, the injured. However, P.W.-8, the radiologist, who had prepared the radiological report in his deposition before court below has stated that in the left eye of the injured P.W.-2, two metallic density foreign bodies were seen. The bones in the eye socket were found fractured at three places i.e. the upper portion, the middle portion and the lower portion, which injuries could be caused by firearm. However, this witness has not stated the distance from which the gun shot was fired. i. P.W.6, S.I. Sanjeev Kumar in his deposition before court below has stated that on 07.12.2019, he took the accused Komal on police remand. Attempts were made to arrest the other accused and further to recover the rifle. The metallic bodies recovered from the eye of injured were sent to the F.S.L. Laboratory. This clearly shows that no attempt was made to establish the identity of the weapon from which the shot was fired resulting in an eye injury to P.W.-2, Praveen Kumar, injured. j. It has come in evidence that the accused Komal Singh had deposited his lincenced rifle at the police station on 18.10.2020 itself. In spite of above, no attempt was made to send the rifle to the F.S.L. Laboratory to ascertain the metallic bodies recovered from the eye of P.W.-2, Praveen Kumar, injured, are part of the bullet fired from the licenced rifle of accused Komal. k. Except for P.W.-1, no other witness has stated that all the accused were firing from the firearms in their hands. According to P.W.-1, accused Komal was firing from his rifle whereas accused Jaynarayan was firing from his country made gun from the roof top of the house. However, P,.W-1 has not seen any bullets, pellets and empties etc. at the place of occurrence. He has alleged that only one bullet hit the eye and except for the above, no other detail regarding the bullet has been made. l. The place from where the gun shot was fired, the depth of the bullet which first struck the wall and thereafter it rebounded and turned has not been 8 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 explained. m. The prosecution witnesses have stated that while accused Jay Narayan was standing below, the other accused Komal, Jeetu and Omveer climbed to the roof top of the house and fire gun shots but there is no recovery of any bullet, pellet and empties etc. nor the place of occurrence has been established. n. The house of accused is alleged to be the place from where the gun shots were fired. The prosecution witnesses have alleged that the house of accused is a double storied house whereas the Investigating Officer has found the same to be a single storied house. This again is an adverse circumstance, which the prosecution has failed to explain. o. Upon evaluation of the entire evidence on record, the court has no other option but to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the very story which it set out to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

23. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the judgement dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, Kunwarpal, the first informant/appellant has now approached this Court by means of present criminal appeal, under section 413 BNSS i.e. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanghita.

24. Mr. Nitin Sharma, the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgement contends before us that the same is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on account of firing made by accused, the injured Praveen sustained gun-shot injury in his eye. The medical evidence on record clearly supports the prosecution case inasmuch as the ocular version of occurrence stands corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The inured Praveen in his deposition before court below has fully supported the prosecution case by stating that he received a firearm injury in his left eye. As per the deposition of this witness i.e. Praveen P.W.-2, the guilt of the accused stands established beyond reasonable doubt. However, in spite of above, court below on an artificial basis that there is contradiction in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses or the circumstances of the case as have emerged on record do not lend credence to the prosecution case, has disbelieved the prosecution case whereby court below has erred in law and fact in acquitting the accused. As such, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside by 9 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 this Court.

25. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. representing State - opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal. Learned A.G.A. contends that the impugned judgement passed by court below is perfectly just and legal. The same is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Court below has considered the entire evidence on record and thereafter, examined it thread bare. As such, court below has neither ignored any evidence, nor there is anything to suggest that court below has misunderstood any evidence. In view of above, no perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement

26. Present case is a case of direct evidence. Therefore, Court below has examined the issue whether the eye witnesses were actually present on the spot and whether their deposition inspires confidence making them worthy of credit and acceptance.

27. It is in the light of above that court below has meticulously examined the depositions of P.W.-1, informant, P.W.-2, Praveen Kumar (injured), P.W.-3 Pawan Kumar (eye witness), P.W..-4 Jayveer Singh (eye wintess) and only thereafter, court below has derived the true import of the depositions of aforementioned witness.

28. On the basis of above, court below has recorded numerous findings which do not support the prosecution story in such a manner so as to render it reliable and therefore, court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the guilt of the accused as alleged by the prosecution is not even prima- facie established.

29. Consequently, court below has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them. In the light of aforementioned submissions as well as the conspectus of facts as have emerged on record, the learned A.G.A. would submit that no interference is warranted by this Court in present appeal. He, therefore, urged that present appeal be dismissed.

30. The case in hand rests upon the oral testimony of P.W.-1, Udayraj Singh, the first informant/brother of deceased. Before considering the true import of his deposition to find out that the inference drawn by court below regarding this witness that his deposition is doubtful, is sustainable or not. We may, at this stage, refer to the judgement of Supreme Court in Shahaja Alias 10 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 12 SCC 558 wherein Court has observed about the manner in which the deposition of an eye witness is to be considered. Paragraph 29 of the said report is relevant for the controversy in hand. Accordingly, the same is extracted herein-under:- "29. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straitjacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:

29.1. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief

29.2. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.

29.3. When eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.

29.4. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.

29.5. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. 29.6. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. 29.7. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb 11 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 the details.

29.8. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

29.9. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

29.10. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.

29.11. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.

29.12. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.

29.13. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."

31. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the only question involved in present appeal is:- Whether the deposition of prosecution witness of fact i.e. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 proves the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

32. Upon examination and evaluation of the deposition of P.W.1 as noted by Court below in paragraphs 13 and 35 of the impugned judgement this Court finds that this witness could not establish himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence. This is on the ground that this witness has himself stated in his deposition before Court below that factum regarding the place from where the gun shots were fired and where it hit was gathered by him subsequently. As such the deposition of this witness is based upon hearsay. P.W.2 Praveen Kumar is an injured eye witness of the occurrence in question. However, this 12 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 witness in his deposition before Court below has not deposed anything regarding the place from where the gun shot was fired leading to an eye injury to this witness nor has he mentioned the names of persons who fired the gun shot. P.W.3 Pawan Kumar is also alleged to be an eye witness of the occurrence but he has shown complete ignorence regarding the place from where the gun shot was fired, the person who fired the gun shot or how the injured came to sustain fire arm injury, as such, nothing substantial has emerged in the deposition of this witness. P.W.4 in his statement-in-chief has supported the prosecution. According to this witness, the accused Komal Jitu and Omveer climbed on the roof top of the house. Accused Komal was armed with rifle whereas the other accused were armed with country made guns. Accused Jai Narain was also armed with a country made gun but was standing at the gate of his house. Accused Jai Narain, Jeetu, and Omveer fired their shots straight whereas accused Praveen and Kuwar Pal fired their shots towards the house. The rifle shot fired by accused Komal hit the injured Praveen Kumar in his eye. Court below has however not dealt with the examination-in-chief of this witness. However, irrespective of above, the deposition of P.W.4 pails into insignificance as the medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence. It is thus evident that the prosecution witnesses of fact have failed to establish the very story which the prosecution set out to prove/establish and thereby confirm that the accused are guilty of committing the crime in question. In view of above, the adverse inference drawn by court below that the prosecution has failed to establish the manner of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused cannot be held to be guilty of having committed the offence complained of is a finding which has been legally and logically deduced from the material on record.

33. Parameters for examining the veracity of a judgment of acquittal is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the Apex Court in numerous judgments. We do not wish to burden our judgment with the numerous authorities of the Apex Court on the point. We shall refer to only one judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant for the present purposes and are therefore reproduced hereinafter:- "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court 13 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

34. In view of the discussion made above, the inescapable conclusion is that Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the judgment of acquittal in favour of accused-opposite parties 2, 3 and 4. Court below has assigned cogent and valid reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. We purposely pointed out the said reasons as crystalized in paragraph 22 of this judgement as to how the same are illegal, perverse or erroneous and how the conclusion drawn by court below on the basis of aforesaid reasons can be said to be illegal in law or fact. Learned counsel for applicant only repeated the contention that since the ocular version of the occurrence is corroborated by the medical evidence therefore, the offence alleged to have been committed by accused stands proved. He, however, could not dislodge the reasons recorded by Court below in support of the conclusion that the proseucutiion has failed to establish the very story which it set out to prove and also the finding that the guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt as per the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 P.W.3 and P.W.4. It is true that the ocular version of the occurence that the injured P.W.2 Praveen Kumar sustained a gun shot injury on his left eye stands corroborated by the medical evidence on record but the prosecution has failed to establish in clear and categorical terms the place of occurrence, the person who fired the fatal gun shot, there is no FSL report to tally the metallic bodies recovered from the left eye of the injured P.W.2 Praveen Kumar with the rifle of accused Komal. Therefore, in view of above it cannot be said that the only conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of evidence on record is that the guilt of accused stands proved on record. As such, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity as Court 14 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 below has scrutinized the entire evidence on record and has not misconstrued any material evidence on record. Even upon re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence on record by us we could not find any such evidence or fact so as to upset the impugned judgment passed by Court below.

35. For all the reasons noted above, the inescapable conclusion is that Court below has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment and thereby acquitting the accused/opposite parties-2, 3, 4 and 5 of the charges alleged against them.

36. In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

37. It is accordingly dismissed.. November 17, 2025 YK (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of first informant and other witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. He also prepared the site plan of the occurrence, which is (Ext. Ka.-4). Upon completion of investigation, Investigating Officer P.W.-6 ultimately submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 5.3.2020 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. (Ext. Ka.-5), whereunder the named accused Komal was charge sheeted under Sections 307, 323, 325, 326 and 504 I.P.C.

9. Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, 3 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 12.06.2020.

10. Investigating Officer subsequently submitted the supplementary charge sheet/police report dated 12.6.2020 (Ext. Ka.-6) where under named accused Omveer, Jeetu and Jaynarayan were charge sheeted under Sections 323/34, 325/34, 326/34 and 506 I.P.C.

11. Upon submission of aforementioned supplementary charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 12.06.2020.

12. Since offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 25.1.2021 committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly above mentioned Sessions Case came to be registered.

13. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. Accordingly in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C., the concerned Sessions Judge framed charges against accused Omveer, Jaynarayan and Jeetu under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 326/34 and 506 I.P.C. vide framing of charge order dated 25.02.2021. The accused denied the charges so framed and demanded trial.

14. By order dated 25.02.2021, the concerned Sessions Judge also framed charges against accused Komal under Sections 307/34, 323/34, 325/34, 326/34 and 504 I.P.C.The accused Komal also denied the charges so framed against him and demanded trial.

15. On the request of prosecution both the aforementioned Sessions Trials were consolidated and Sessions Case No. 330 of 2021 (State of U.P. Vs. Komal) was treated as the leading case.

16. Prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused has relied upon the following prosecution witnesses:- (i). PW-1, Kunwar Pal (first informant) (ii). PW-2, Praveen Kumar (injured witness) (iii). PW-3, Pawan Kumar (eye witness). 4 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 (iv). PW-4, Jayveer Singh (eye witness) (v). PW-5, Suresh Singh (Scribe of the F.IR.) (vi). PW-6, Sandeep Kumar ( Investigating Officer) (vii). P.W.7, Jagat Singh (Witness of recovery) (viii) P.W.-8, Dr. Saurabh Prakash Sharma (Doctor)

17. Apart from relying upon the depositions of aforementioned witnesses, prosecution has also relied upon the following documentary evidence: (i). Ext-Ka-1 Written Report proved by P.W.1, Kunwar Pal. (ii). Ext-Ka-2 Check F.I.R. proved by P.W.-5, Suresh Singh. (iii) Ext. Ka.-3, G. D. Report, proved by P.W.-5, Suresh Singh. (iv). Ext-Ka-4, Site Plan proved by P.W.-6, Sandeep Kumar. (v). Ext-Ka-5, charge sheet proved by P.W.-6, Sandeep Kumar. (vi). Ext-Ka-6, Charge Sheet/Police Report proved by P.W.-7, Jagat Singh. (vii). Ext-Ka-7, Medico Legal of injured Praveen Kumar proved by P.W.-8, Dr. Saurabh Prakash Sharma. (viii). Ext-Ka-8, Supplementary Medical report of injured Praveen Kumar proved by P.W.-8. Dr. Saurabh Prakash Sharma (ix) Ext-Ka-9, C. T. Scan Report (x) Ext-Ka-10, X-ray report.

18. Apart from the aforesaid documentary evidence, prosecution also relied upon certain material exhibits, which are tabulated herein under:- (i). M, Ext-Ka-1 to 3, C. T. Scan Plate proved by PW.-9. (ii). M, Ext-Ka-4, X-ray Report, proved by PW.-9.

19. After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse/incriminating 5 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were disclosed to the accused for their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the charges framed against them, by alleging that no occurrence as alleged took place, no firing was done from the roof top of the house of accused, the house of accused and Praveen injured is not in a straight line, there are two big trees in between, the house of Praveen is deep inside after the tree, if the firing is done from the roof top of the house of accused, no injury shall be caused/ near the house of Praveen, Praveen has not sustained any injury of bullet or pellets, a false F.I.R. has been registered, the Investigating Officer has conducted ex-parte investigation which is not impartial and thus submitted a false charge-sheet/police report, the injured has sustained injury in his eye accidentally on account of firing done by himself, the information regarding injured having sustained injuries was gathered from the nearby residents, the criminal prosecution of accused has been launched out of rivalry.

20. After the statements of the accused had been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused adduced D..W.-1, Babu Lal as a defence witness in proof of their innocence.

21. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record, the submissions urged on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, court below concluded that the following points of determination arise in the trial:- i. Whether the accused after entering into a quarrel with the informant Kumwar Pal with a common object fired gun shots to cause murder on the side of informant. ii. Whether on account of firing done by accused, the injured Praveen sustained injury in his eye on account of which it got shattered.

22. Court below thereafter evaluated the prosecution case in the light of evidence on record. On the basis of above, court below arrived at the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the very story, which it set out to prove. Resultantly, court below vide judgement dated 10.09.2025 acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them on the following grounds/reasons: a. The occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings occurred on 6 NC413 No. 646 of 2025

28.11.2009 at 7.00 'O' clock. The F.I.R. in respect of same was lodged on

28.11.2009 at 17.33 hours. Considering the fact that there is an injured, therefore, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. or that the F.I.R. is not prompt is irrelevant. The F.I.R. cannot be doubted on the ground of delay. b- Both the parties admit that the injured P.W.2 Praveen sustained fire arm injury in his eye. The dispute between the parties is as to who had fired the gun shot. According to the prosecution the gun shot was fired by the accused whereas according to the accused, the injured Praveen himself appears to have fired a country made gun, which hit him in his eye. c. As per the medical evidence on record, i.e. Ext. Ka.-7, medical report and Ext. Ka.-8 supplementary medical report as well as the deposition of P.W.-8. Dr. Saurabh Prakash Misra,who proved the aforesaid reports has deposed that in the C.T. Scan of injured numerous metallic pellets were seen in the eye of injured. The injury sustained by the injured was serious. He has also detailed the injury. The injured was operated upon and two foreign metallic bodies were recovered from his left eye. His injured eye was completely damaged. As such, the injury sustained by the injured was serious. d. The medical evidence on record clearly points out that the injured P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar sustained firearm injury in his eye. The same is explicit from the documentary evidence i.e Ext. Ka.-7, medical report and Ext. Ka.-8 supplementary report of the injured P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar. e. Two metallic foreign bodies were recovered from the body of injured i.e. P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar and numerous metallic articles were seen in the left eye of injured. His eye was operated upon but his eye was totally damaged. f. According to the prosecution, the place from where the gun shots were fired is the house of accused Komal. The accused had fired the gun shot from the roof top of his house. It is the case of the prosecution that the bullet first struck the wall of the house of Ranveer, it then turned and hit the eye of Praveen. g. Since beginning, the prosecution has alleged two incidents and two places of occurrence. The first occurrence is said to have taken place near the field of first informant whereas the second occurrence is the act of accused firing gun shots, which hit the injured Praveen in his left eye. There is no description of the first occurrence. According to defence, there is no mention 7 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 of the place in the F.I.R. from where the gun shots were fired. Subsequently by taking legal aid it has been alleged that shots were fired from the roof top of the house of accused. Since FI.R. is not the encyclopedia of prosecution case, therefore, even if there is no recital in the F.I.R. regarding above, the same shall not be fatal for the prosecution. h. It is alleged by the prosecution that since the shot was fired from a distance therefore it got fragmented into small pieces and thereafter hit the eye of P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar, the injured. However, P.W.-8, the radiologist, who had prepared the radiological report in his deposition before court below has stated that in the left eye of the injured P.W.-2, two metallic density foreign bodies were seen. The bones in the eye socket were found fractured at three places i.e. the upper portion, the middle portion and the lower portion, which injuries could be caused by firearm. However, this witness has not stated the distance from which the gun shot was fired. i. P.W.6, S.I. Sanjeev Kumar in his deposition before court below has stated that on 07.12.2019, he took the accused Komal on police remand. Attempts were made to arrest the other accused and further to recover the rifle. The metallic bodies recovered from the eye of injured were sent to the F.S.L. Laboratory. This clearly shows that no attempt was made to establish the identity of the weapon from which the shot was fired resulting in an eye injury to P.W.-2, Praveen Kumar, injured. j. It has come in evidence that the accused Komal Singh had deposited his lincenced rifle at the police station on 18.10.2020 itself. In spite of above, no attempt was made to send the rifle to the F.S.L. Laboratory to ascertain the metallic bodies recovered from the eye of P.W.-2, Praveen Kumar, injured, are part of the bullet fired from the licenced rifle of accused Komal. k. Except for P.W.-1, no other witness has stated that all the accused were firing from the firearms in their hands. According to P.W.-1, accused Komal was firing from his rifle whereas accused Jaynarayan was firing from his country made gun from the roof top of the house. However, P,.W-1 has not seen any bullets, pellets and empties etc. at the place of occurrence. He has alleged that only one bullet hit the eye and except for the above, no other detail regarding the bullet has been made. l. The place from where the gun shot was fired, the depth of the bullet which first struck the wall and thereafter it rebounded and turned has not been 8 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 explained. m. The prosecution witnesses have stated that while accused Jay Narayan was standing below, the other accused Komal, Jeetu and Omveer climbed to the roof top of the house and fire gun shots but there is no recovery of any bullet, pellet and empties etc. nor the place of occurrence has been established. n. The house of accused is alleged to be the place from where the gun shots were fired. The prosecution witnesses have alleged that the house of accused is a double storied house whereas the Investigating Officer has found the same to be a single storied house. This again is an adverse circumstance, which the prosecution has failed to explain. o. Upon evaluation of the entire evidence on record, the court has no other option but to conclude that the prosecution has failed to prove the very story which it set out to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

23. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the judgement dated 10.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, Kunwarpal, the first informant/appellant has now approached this Court by means of present criminal appeal, under section 413 BNSS i.e. Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanghita.

24. Mr. Nitin Sharma, the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgement contends before us that the same is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on account of firing made by accused, the injured Praveen sustained gun-shot injury in his eye. The medical evidence on record clearly supports the prosecution case inasmuch as the ocular version of occurrence stands corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The inured Praveen in his deposition before court below has fully supported the prosecution case by stating that he received a firearm injury in his left eye. As per the deposition of this witness i.e. Praveen P.W.-2, the guilt of the accused stands established beyond reasonable doubt. However, in spite of above, court below on an artificial basis that there is contradiction in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses or the circumstances of the case as have emerged on record do not lend credence to the prosecution case, has disbelieved the prosecution case whereby court below has erred in law and fact in acquitting the accused. As such, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside by 9 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 this Court.

25. Per contra, Mr. Prashant Kumar, the learned A.G.A. representing State - opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal. Learned A.G.A. contends that the impugned judgement passed by court below is perfectly just and legal. The same is, therefore, not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Court below has considered the entire evidence on record and thereafter, examined it thread bare. As such, court below has neither ignored any evidence, nor there is anything to suggest that court below has misunderstood any evidence. In view of above, no perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement

26. Present case is a case of direct evidence. Therefore, Court below has examined the issue whether the eye witnesses were actually present on the spot and whether their deposition inspires confidence making them worthy of credit and acceptance.

27. It is in the light of above that court below has meticulously examined the depositions of P.W.-1, informant, P.W.-2, Praveen Kumar (injured), P.W.-3 Pawan Kumar (eye witness), P.W..-4 Jayveer Singh (eye wintess) and only thereafter, court below has derived the true import of the depositions of aforementioned witness.

28. On the basis of above, court below has recorded numerous findings which do not support the prosecution story in such a manner so as to render it reliable and therefore, court below has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the guilt of the accused as alleged by the prosecution is not even prima- facie established.

29. Consequently, court below has rightly acquitted the accused of the charges framed against them. In the light of aforementioned submissions as well as the conspectus of facts as have emerged on record, the learned A.G.A. would submit that no interference is warranted by this Court in present appeal. He, therefore, urged that present appeal be dismissed.

30. The case in hand rests upon the oral testimony of P.W.-1, Udayraj Singh, the first informant/brother of deceased. Before considering the true import of his deposition to find out that the inference drawn by court below regarding this witness that his deposition is doubtful, is sustainable or not. We may, at this stage, refer to the judgement of Supreme Court in Shahaja Alias 10 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 12 SCC 558 wherein Court has observed about the manner in which the deposition of an eye witness is to be considered. Paragraph 29 of the said report is relevant for the controversy in hand. Accordingly, the same is extracted herein-under:- "29. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straitjacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under:

29.1. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief

29.2. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.

29.3. When eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence.

29.4. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.

29.5. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. 29.6. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. 29.7. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb 11 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 the details.

29.8. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

29.9. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

29.10. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.

29.11. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.

29.12. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.

29.13. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness."

31. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the only question involved in present appeal is:- Whether the deposition of prosecution witness of fact i.e. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 proves the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

32. Upon examination and evaluation of the deposition of P.W.1 as noted by Court below in paragraphs 13 and 35 of the impugned judgement this Court finds that this witness could not establish himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence. This is on the ground that this witness has himself stated in his deposition before Court below that factum regarding the place from where the gun shots were fired and where it hit was gathered by him subsequently. As such the deposition of this witness is based upon hearsay. P.W.2 Praveen Kumar is an injured eye witness of the occurrence in question. However, this 12 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 witness in his deposition before Court below has not deposed anything regarding the place from where the gun shot was fired leading to an eye injury to this witness nor has he mentioned the names of persons who fired the gun shot. P.W.3 Pawan Kumar is also alleged to be an eye witness of the occurrence but he has shown complete ignorence regarding the place from where the gun shot was fired, the person who fired the gun shot or how the injured came to sustain fire arm injury, as such, nothing substantial has emerged in the deposition of this witness. P.W.4 in his statement-in-chief has supported the prosecution. According to this witness, the accused Komal Jitu and Omveer climbed on the roof top of the house. Accused Komal was armed with rifle whereas the other accused were armed with country made guns. Accused Jai Narain was also armed with a country made gun but was standing at the gate of his house. Accused Jai Narain, Jeetu, and Omveer fired their shots straight whereas accused Praveen and Kuwar Pal fired their shots towards the house. The rifle shot fired by accused Komal hit the injured Praveen Kumar in his eye. Court below has however not dealt with the examination-in-chief of this witness. However, irrespective of above, the deposition of P.W.4 pails into insignificance as the medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence. It is thus evident that the prosecution witnesses of fact have failed to establish the very story which the prosecution set out to prove/establish and thereby confirm that the accused are guilty of committing the crime in question. In view of above, the adverse inference drawn by court below that the prosecution has failed to establish the manner of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the accused cannot be held to be guilty of having committed the offence complained of is a finding which has been legally and logically deduced from the material on record.

33. Parameters for examining the veracity of a judgment of acquittal is no longer res-integra and stands settled by the Apex Court in numerous judgments. We do not wish to burden our judgment with the numerous authorities of the Apex Court on the point. We shall refer to only one judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 561. Paragraphs 39 and 40 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant for the present purposes and are therefore reproduced hereinafter:- "39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court 13 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court."

34. In view of the discussion made above, the inescapable conclusion is that Court below has not committed any illegality in passing the judgment of acquittal in favour of accused-opposite parties 2, 3 and 4. Court below has assigned cogent and valid reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case. We purposely pointed out the said reasons as crystalized in paragraph 22 of this judgement as to how the same are illegal, perverse or erroneous and how the conclusion drawn by court below on the basis of aforesaid reasons can be said to be illegal in law or fact. Learned counsel for applicant only repeated the contention that since the ocular version of the occurrence is corroborated by the medical evidence therefore, the offence alleged to have been committed by accused stands proved. He, however, could not dislodge the reasons recorded by Court below in support of the conclusion that the proseucutiion has failed to establish the very story which it set out to prove and also the finding that the guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt as per the deposition of P.W.1, P.W.2 P.W.3 and P.W.4. It is true that the ocular version of the occurence that the injured P.W.2 Praveen Kumar sustained a gun shot injury on his left eye stands corroborated by the medical evidence on record but the prosecution has failed to establish in clear and categorical terms the place of occurrence, the person who fired the fatal gun shot, there is no FSL report to tally the metallic bodies recovered from the left eye of the injured P.W.2 Praveen Kumar with the rifle of accused Komal. Therefore, in view of above it cannot be said that the only conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of evidence on record is that the guilt of accused stands proved on record. As such, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity as Court 14 NC413 No. 646 of 2025 below has scrutinized the entire evidence on record and has not misconstrued any material evidence on record. Even upon re-appraisal and re-appreciation of the evidence on record by us we could not find any such evidence or fact so as to upset the impugned judgment passed by Court below.

35. For all the reasons noted above, the inescapable conclusion is that Court below has not committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgment and thereby acquitting the accused/opposite parties-2, 3, 4 and 5 of the charges alleged against them.

36. In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

37. It is accordingly dismissed.. November 17, 2025 YK (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)