DAYA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Sri Anil Kumar Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant in the criminal appeal under section 372 Cr.P.C., learned A.G.A. for the State in Government Appeal No. 266 of 2012 and perused the Trial Court judgment and record.

(2.) AN FIR was lodged by P.W. 1 Dayaram at 7.6.1994 at 8.10 a.m. alleging therein that on the same day at 7.00 a.m. the accused-respondents Ramdhani and others who had usurped a greater share of their property, tried to remove the hut of the informant Dayaram on the said property, and when a protest was made by the deceased Savitri she was assaulted by the accused persons with knife, Farsa, Bhala and lathi resulting in her death. Injuries were caused in the incident to Dayaram, P.W. 2 Mata Badal, P.W. 3 Hari Ram and Smt. Somwati and Smt. Kamla. The cross report was lodged from the side of the accused- respondent which has resulted in acquittal of the complainant party. The principal grounds for acquittal recorded by the Trial Judge were that as admittedly the accused side werein possession of the greater portion of the property, it should be expected that the hut belonged to the accused side. In this connection no documents have been filed by the prosecution side to show that the said hut on the plot No. 97 belong to the informant Dayaram, rather the defence has shown that the property belonged to one Parti, who used to live there who after becoming a 'Sanyasini' had made a Will in favour of the accused-respondent Ravindra. This hut fell in plot No. 97 and in the Government record also the hut had been shown in the name of Ravindra. If that be the position, it would be the prosecution side who would be interested in demolishing the hut. The prosecution side was already annoyed with the accused who were related to the prosecution side and who tried to usurp a greater share of the property. They would then have a greater motive to launch the attack. It was further observed by the Trial Judge that four persons had received injuries on the side of the accused. These injuries were not explained in the prosecution version. No doubt learned Counsel for the complainant tried to draw our attention to the statement of the Investigating Officer that the injuries were caused to these injured accused persons when he tried to apprehend them. However, the version that the Investigating Officer would beat up four persons including two women and in that case they would received injuries does not appear probable and the prosecution is trying to fill up a lacuna in its case.