EDAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and have perused the judgement of the Trial Court, by which Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Hathras, has acquitted the accused respondents under section 302 I.P.C., section 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act and Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. etc., in S.T. Nos. 188 of 2010 and 189 of 2010 by the judgement dated 1.3.2014.

(2.) The prosecution allegation in the F.I.R. lodged by Udal Singh, P.W. 1, father of the deceased Babboo was that some dancers had come in connection with the marriage of the daughter of Babboo Nat with the son of Saudan Nat on 18.3.22010. At about 9 p.m., the informant Udal, his son Babloo (the deceased) and his uncle (Edal Singh), (the appellant), Brijendra Singh, Om Prakash and others were seeing the "rangsala. "The accused respondents Yogesh, Shiv Kumar and Triloki Pradhan their father arrived at the spot. At that time, the three accused persons fired with country made pistols which struck the neck of the deceased Babloo, who died at the spot. On 6.4.2010 at 8.40 p.m., accused respondent Yogesh was arrested near the culvert in village Garavgarhi Road, near the Collectorate and a 315 bore tamancha and two live cartridges of 315 bore were recovered from him.

(3.) The prosecution has examined six witnesses Udal Singh, P.W. 1, informant, Om Prakash, P.W. 2, Edal Singh, (the appellant), P.W. 3, Ravendra Pratap Singh, P.W. 4, Lalaram, P.W. 5, and Patiram, P.W. 6. as eyewitnesses. All the aforesaid witnesses other than P.W. 3 Edal Singh have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. The case of the witnesses other than Edal Singh in their evidence in Court was that at the marriage the "rangsala" was taking place and the accused respondents had resorted to firing, which accidentally struck the deceased on his neck. However, the case of Edal Singh, P.W. 3, the? appellant was that at 4 p.m. on the same day he was trying to take water from the tube well of Om Prakash, which was not permitted by the accused respondents. Then he ran away and the deceased is said to have questioned them as to why they were abusing his grand father. As a consequence of that dispute at 9 p.m. at the marriage, the accused-respondents had fired on the deceased and the fire by Yogesh had struck the deceased on his neck. The Trial Judge observed that even Om Prakash, P.W. 2 at whose tube well, the dispute had taken place, does not support this version and only states that the accident has taken place, as a result of the celebratory firing at the time of marriage. We also find that the Trial Judge has held that there was no good reason for the accused-respondents to have committed this crime. Rather as P.W. 3 Edal Singh has himself suggested that the accused Triloki, father of the accused-respondents had objected to the functioning of his fair price shop, regarding which an inquiry had been conducted. This provides a greater motive for the false implication of the accused respondents, who are sons of Triloki Pradhan.