STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four respondents were accused of having caused homicidal death of Munshi Lal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), committing dacoity and attempting to commit murder of Ramai (PW.1). Though the IV Additional Sessions Judge found them guilty of several offences and convicted and sentenced them, the High Court found them innocent by theimpugned judgment and directed their acquittal.

(2.) Factual scenario according to the prosecution is as follows : Around midnight of 9-5-1978, dacoity was committed in the house of P.W.1, during which deceased was murdered. Along with accused persons, several others numbering 8-9 had forced into the house of Ramai. Accused Suraj Pal belongs to the same village as that of thedeceased and PW1. The others belong to theneighbouring village i.e. Gangupura. Four of them were identified by Ramai and other witnesses at the spot itself. Though dacoity was committed, the primary object was to commit murder of the deceased since he had once objected the marriage of Tarawati, the sister of accused-Suraj Pal with accused-Babu and this had caused bad blood between the two. Accused-Babu had even lodged the First Information Report against deceased charging him with theft soon after his marriage with Tarawati which took place despite opposition by the deceased. Accused-Babu and Lala Ram inflicted injuries with their respective firearms on the deceased and accused-Babu stabbed thedeceased as a result of which injuries were sustained by him. The informant was sleeping near themain gate of thehouse and was awakened by cries of the deceased and entered the house. Accused-Suraj Pal shot at Ramai with theintention of causing his death. This resulted in gunshot wounds to Ramai who was also beaten by other victims. Thereafter they decamped with certain properties. Written report (Ex. Ka.1) was lodged by Ramai regarding theoccurrence, at 9.35 a.m. on 10-5-1978. He was sent to the Public Health Centre for medical examination and theinvestigating officer reached thevillage. He found thedead body of thedeceased and sent it for post-mortem examination which was conducted at 3.00 p.m. on 11-5-1978.

(3.) On completion of theinvestigation, charge-sheet was placed and accused persons were sent for trial. They pleaded innocence, and false implication. To further the prosecution version 9 witnesses were examined. Apart from PW1 who claimed to be eye-witness, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW8 and PW9 also claimed to be eye-witnesses. But PWs 2, 4, 8 and 9 resiled from their statement during investigation while deposing in Court. The trial Court found the accused-Babu, Suraj Pal and Lala Ram guilty for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Sections 149, 148, Section 323 read with Section 149 and Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). Accused-Nathu was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 147, Section 323 read with Section 149 and Section 395, IPC. Accused-Suraj was acquitted of charge relating to the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC but no custodial sentence was imposed for the rest of the offences. The accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court directed acquittal. The primary reason for doing so was that the evidence of Ramai (PW1) could not be relied upon. Widow and daughter of the deceased has no supported the prosecution case. Additionally, it was observed that there was no material to show as to how theprosecution witness could identify the accused persons, as there was great doubt about thesource of light. High Court noticed that in thesite plan, theplace where the gaslight was found had not been indicated though same was stated by prosecution to be the source of light.