STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. VEER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Uttar Pradesh questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing acquittal of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused'), 13 persons were claimed to be responsible for the death of large number of persons including small children. Of them, one namely, Mahendra died during trial. After commitment, they faced trial in the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar. While the trial was in progress, 4 of them absconded and 8 persons have been tried. Three of them namely, Hardeep, Sinder Singh and Nishan Singh were acquitted by the trial Court, while the rest five who are respondents herein were convicted for the offences punishable under S. 302 read with S. 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). They were also found guilty under S. 307 read with S. 149, I.P.C., and under S. 452, I.P.C. For the offence relatable to S. 307 read with S. 149, I.P.C. they were sentenced five years R.I. and for the offence relatable to S. 452 they were sentenced four years R.I. Respondent-Veer Singh, Tahal Singh, Balkar Singh were also found guilty of offences punishable under S. 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to three years R.I. while Kameer Singh and Amreek Singh were found guilty of offence punishable under S. 147, I.P.C. and were sentenced to one year R.I. In appeal by the convicted accused persons, the conviction has been set aside by the impugned judgment.

(2.) Prosecution version in essential is as follows :

(3.) Mr. N. S. Gahlot, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. The so-called dying declaration which was recorded with the belief that there was no chance of survival of P.W. 4 is in essence a statement recorded under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') having been recorded by the Executive Magistrate, since she has survived. It related to a part of the incident so far as the assailants on her are concerned and did not in any way related to the rest of the occurrence. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing acquittal of respondents.