STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAJ NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated Jan. 10, 1975 setting aside the judgment and sentences passed by the 2nd Temporary and Civil Sessions Judge, Varanasi dated Feb. 17, 1971, and acquitting the respondents of an offence under S. 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Five of them have also been acquitted of an offence under Section 148 and the remaining two of an offence under S. 147 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It is not necessary for purposes of this appeal to set out the facts in detail except to mention that the deceased Sabha Shankar died of a gunshot wound in front of his house on Aug. 13, 1968 at about 12.30 p. m. The First Information Report (Ext. P-1) was lodged by P. W.-1 Amarnath, a distant colateral of the deceased, at Police Station. Mirzamurad on the same day at about 2.45 p. m. stating that the deceased had been shot dead by the accused Janardan, who was armed with a gun, at the exhortation of the other accused Raj Nath, Anirudh, Sudhakar, Vibhakar alias Mangu, Harihar alias Sallar, and Vijai Dutt alias Jhurul, who were present armed with various weapons. The prosecution examined four witnesses P. W. 1, Amarnath, P. W. 2 Sheomurat, P. W. 3 Aparbal, and P. W. 4 Shyam Behari. According to the version of the eye-witnesses, on the day of occurrence P. W. 7 Shri Deo Murti Pandey, Advocate, appointed as a Commissioner, had come to the village from Varanasi to conduct a local inspection. When Shri Pandey asked that the Bardaur be opened to enable him to take measurements of the room, Mst. Devi Dei, mother of P. W. 1 Amarnath, produced the key with the aid of which the door was opened. Thereafter, an altercation is said to have ensued resulting in the deceased being shot dead by the accused Janardan. These witnesses speak of the presence of the remaining six accused armed with various weapons on the spot. According to P. W. 7 Shri Deo Murti Pandey, both the parties came on the scene armed with lathis etc. and thereupon he, apprehending danger, left the scene of occurrence. On his own showing, this witness was anxious to get away from the place of incident and he actually ran towards the railway station where he found the Upper India standing at the platform. He boarded the train and returned to Varanasi. This witness therefore had not witnessed the incident.

(3.) Having heard the parties, we are satisfied that the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court has resulted in the manifest miscarriage of justice. The High Court has made no attempt to come to grips with the evidence of the eye-witnesses. Indeed, the High Court has not dealt with the evidence at all, nor is there any effort made to evaluate the same. The entire judgment of the High Court consists of one paragraph which may be reproduced below: