SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 379, Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act filed by 12 appellants. They are original accused Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6 to 14. They along with six others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 307/ 149, 302/149 and 325/149, I.P.C. Among them accused Nos.7, 12 and 18 were tried under Section 148, I.P.C. also and A-1 Sita Ram was also tried under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The trial Court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and the Division Bench of the High Court convicted the appellants before us under Sections 302/ 149 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under Sections 307/149 and sentenced to seven years R.I., under Sections 325/1149 and sentenced to five years R.I. and under Sections 379/ 149 and sentenced to three years R.I., A-1 was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year R.I. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case is as follows.

(2.) In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court while reversing the order of acquittal ought to have considered each reason given by the trial Court and even if an alternative view was possible, that was not a ground for the High Court to interfere and convict the accused.

(3.) To satisfy ourselves, we have gone through the evidence of the eye-witnesses as well as the medical evidence. There are five eye-witnesses i.e. P.Ws. Nos. 1, 3, 12, 13 and 17. P.W. 12 is an injured witness whose presence cannot be doubted. He has given the FIR at the earliest point of time. All the details are mentioned in the FIR. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 whose presence also is not in doubt. The evidence of P.Ws. 13 and 17 is also on the same lines. We do not think that their evidence should be rejected on the ground that they are chance witnesses as has been done by the trial court. They are agriculturists and there is nothing unusual for them to go to the fields. From a perusal of the records, the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted. The cause that led to the occurrence cannot also be doubted. In such a situation when the presence of at least three of the eye-witnesses is not in doubt their evidence would be entitled to great weight particularly that of the injured witness P.W. 12. By way of careful scrutiny the High Court has considered their evidence against each of the individual accused and convicted only the appellants whose presence and participation had been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Having gone through the evidence of these eye-witnesses we see absolutely no reason to come to a different conclusion.