State v. Amar Singh and others) whereby the
Case Details
Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 9 of 1987 Revisionist :- Om Prakash Opposite Party :- State Counsel for Revisionist :- R.B.Sahai Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J. List revised. None appears to press this revision on behalf of revisionist. However, learned A.G.A. for the State is present. The instant revision is an old one, pending since 1987. I have gone through the pleadings, grounds as also reliefs sought by the revisionist. The present revision has been filed against the Judgement and order of acquittal 29.10.1986 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 1985 (State Vs. Amar Singh and others) whereby the accused- opposite parties nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted for the offences under Sections 143, 307, 149 I.P.C.Police Station Chandpur, District Fatehpur.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are that on 08.12.1984 at about 10:00 A.M., the informant and his associates were going to attend the invitation of one Ram Singh at Village Coopar Kar Purwa, on the way at dools of kumhors, the accused Amar Singh had threatened to kill him, the accused-opposite parties Jagroop Singh, Ram Raj armed with their gun, Amar Singh armed with gun of Shiv Karan Singh, Atam Singh armed with gun of his father and Om Prakash armed with gun of his brother, all the accused persons fired upon the informant and his associates with an intention to kill him, somehow they entered the house of Kumhars but they surrounded that house and due to firing of the accused persons a cow was injured, which incident was witnessed by Chandra Shekhar and Mohan Lal as well as other persons of the village. It was a threatening of accused-opposite party no.1-Amar Singh that if any Pandit would attend the invitation of Thakurs, he will be killed and due to this reason, the accused persons fired upon the informant and his associates. With regard to the incident dated 08.12.1984, a first information report was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 307, 149 I.P.C. at Police Station Chandpur, District Fatehpur. Thereafter, the matter was entrusted for investigation, after recording of the statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. as well as examination of injury of cow, the investigation was culminated in submission of charge sheet against the accused-opposite parties nos. 2 to 6 on 30.12.1984 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. upon which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter charges were framed under Sections 148, 307, 149 I.P.C.The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of its case adduced two oral evidence firstly Om Prakash as P.W.1, Mohan Lal as P.W.2, Ram Das Bajpayee as P.W.3. The Sub- Inspector, also appeared, who proved the site plan exhibit Ka-4, charge sheet exhibit Ka-5. Accused-opposite parties were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied evidence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated. However, no evidence was led in defence. After hearing and analysing the evidence on record, the learned Court below vide Judgement and order dated 29.10.1986 acquitted the accused- opposite parties nos. 2 to 6, which is impugned in the present revision. It has been averred in the present revision that there are two cross cases and both cases are admitted to the accused-opposite parties even then the learned Court below has recorded the findings that the incident has not taken place, irrespective of the fact that the informant was examined as P.W.1 and Mohan Lal and Ram Das as P.W.2 and P.W.3., who have corroborated the prosecution story. Another ground taken is that the learned Court below has wrongly recorded the finding that contradictory statement has been given by the P.W.1. Apart from the aforesaid, several others germane grounds have been taken in the instant revision for convicting and sentencing the accused-opposite parties nos. 2 to 6. Perusal of the impugned judgement and order shows that the learned Court below has considered and discussed the fact as to whether the incident has taken place or not. The learned Court below has observed that the accused Amar Singh had threatened the informant that no Pandit of his hamlet will attend invitation of Thakur and if any pandit do so, he would not be spared, whereas the P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that the challenge of the accused-Amar Singh was that if any Thakur would go to the door of any Pandit, he would be killed. Thus there are two contradictory version and therefore, the learned Court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution story is not probable. The learned Court below has also recorded the findings that the informant in his examination-in-chief has disclosed the name of Guru Prasad and Ram Gopal to have accompanied him at the time of incident, but their names were not disclosed in the F.I.R. The learned Court below while acquitting the accused-opposite parties has recorded the findings that as per F.I.R. version, the accused persons had hidden themselves and thus it is highly improbable for the informant to see as to which accused person was armed with which weapon. Full description of weapons along with the names of the owner is not possible. It has also been observed that the accused-opposite party no.2 Jagroop Singh has lodged an F.I.R. under Section 307 I.P.C. against the informant of the present case as well as witness Ram Gopal, Guru Chandra and Ram Kripal, therefore they are interested witnesses and their statements cannot be relied. The learned Court below has also observed that cross examination of P.W.3 Ram Das Bajpayee shows that Mohan Lal did not give any statement that he heard voice of fire arm from the house of Bihari, which also shows that the witness had not arrived at the place of occurrence, as stated, that when they reached the house of Maiyadeen firing was going on from the side of accused persons and if it was so, then there must be some sign of pellets but there was no sign of pellets and thus recorded the findings that no incident has taken place, furthermore the statements of the witnesses are contradictory and lastly the injuries sustained by the cow caused by the fire arm of the accused-opposite parties could not be established in view of the material contradictions, discrepancies and in the statements of witnesses and therefore acquitted the accused opposite parties. After going through the aforesaid Judgement and order of acquittal, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Court below has discussed every corner of the prosecution case but the prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, which resulted into acquittal of the accused-opposite parties and thus there is no legal infirmity in the Judgement and order, which may call for any interference by this Court in exercise of powers conferred under revisional jurisdiction. The judgement and order under challenge is affirmed. Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is dismissed. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the concerned Court below. Order Date :- 6.8.2022 S.Ali Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.08.22 17:12:24 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad