STATE OF U.P. Vs. KALLU AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is Government Appeal against the judgment and order of Sri J. V. M. Jaiswal, Sessions Judge. Hamirpur dated 6-3-1987 acquitting the respondents Kallu and Lallan of the charge under Sections 3021201 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

(2.) I heard the counsel for the State and went through the judgment of the Sessions Judge in the Session Trial No. 330 of 1986. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that none of the independent witnesses had been examined by the prosecution and the only witnesses produced were the father and the mother of the deceased. So far as the mother is concerned, it has been mentioned that her statement under Sec. 161 Cr. P. C. had been recorded a month after the incident. The learned Sessions Judge has, at length, discussed as to how the medical evidence was in conflict with the oral evidence adduced and that the father of the deceased had a motive for false implication. The deceased, it has been indicated in the judgment, had a criminal history and it appeared to the Sessions Judge that he had been murdered in a lonely place where the prosecution witnesses examined had not been present, for some of the injuries sustained by the deceased have not been explained. The difficulty of the Sessions Judge in placing reliance upon the testimony of Mahadeo (P.W. 1), the father of the deceased and Smt. Rani (P.W. 3) the mother 'of the deceased could not be said to be unjustified. The impugned judgment of the Sessions Judge could not be said to be perverse as it is supported by plausible reasonings.

(3.) This Government Appeal as such, which is beyond time by three days, also, does not deserve to be admitted.