STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. BUDDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of acquittal passed by the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). The two respondents were convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, for the murder of two brothers, Chandrika and Sita Ram, on the night between 26th and 27th of April, 1971 in village Barkhurdarpur, police station Chinhat, district Lucknow. The Additional Sessions Judge described this as a case of "could blooded revolting double murder". The High Court has acquitted both the accused giving them the benefit of doubt. The appellant, State of Uttar Pradesh, seeks to have the acquittal set aside.

(2.) The trial Court relied on the three eye-witnesses. P. W. 2 Ram Lal father of the victims, P. W. 3 Buddha Pasi and P. W. 7 Bhellar. All the three claimed to have seen the respondents clearly in the light of the torches they were carrying. The trial Court found that there was "no direct or indirect suggestion" that either P. W. 3 or P. W. 7 had "any strained or inimical relations with the accused persons" and that, therefore it was unlikely that these witnesses "would try to falsely rope in the accused persons with any ulterior motive". It was further found that there was "no real conflict between the medical evidence and the oral evidence", as sought to be made out on behalf of the accused so far as the injuries on the person of one of the victims. The trial Court also noted that there were "certain minor contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses" regarding the manner of "use of the weapons by the assailants", but did not consider them to be of much significance.

(3.) The High Court did not find it possible to rely on the evidence of P. W. 2 Ram Lal. Referring to the points of difference in Ram Lal's statements before the committing Magistrate and in the Sessions Court as regards the motive for the crime, the High Court took the view that the motives suggested by Ram Lal were "fabricated" by him to strengthen the case against the respondents. The acquittal ordered by the High Court proceeds mainly on a suspicion that the story of the witnesses carrying torches with them was not true and there was not sufficient light for them to identify the assailants. Admittedly it was a dark moonless night. What made the learned Judges of the High Court suspect that the witnesses did not have any torch was the statement made by one Gajodhar before the committing Magistrate. Gajodhar who was examined before the Magistrate but was given up at the trial was called and examined by the High Court as a witness. Before the High Court he said that he saw the occurrence in the light of the torches which P. W. 2, P. W. 3 and P. W. 7 were flashing. He added that a lantern was brought later by the villagers. To a question put by the court as to whether the lantern was "sent for so that the injuries might be seen", he replied "there was no point in sending for a lantern when there were so many torches there". The witness was then confronted with his statement before the committing Magistrate.