State Of U.P vs Awdesh

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

3. Since the accused persons abjured guilt they were put on trial. It is to be noted that originally three persons were named as accused and reference was made to 9 unknown persons. One of them died during trial, and one died during pendency of the appeal before the High Court. Respondent was accused No.4. In order to further its version prosecution examined 29 witnesses. Placing reliance on testimony of Har Prasad (PW-2), Ram Lakhan (PW-7), Smt. Sheo Sakhi (PW-11) and Smt. Ram Rati (PW-12) the trial Court directed conviction as noted above.

4. Stand of the appellant before the High Court was that accused persons were admittedly on inimical terms with Har Prasad (PW-2) and it was a specific case that accused Babu Singh had absconded and did not face trial. He was on 4 inimical terms with the deceased and PW-2. Respondent Awdhesh happened to be brother in law of Babu Singh. The trial Court held that the accusations have been established. In appeal before the High Court it was noted that the enmity aspect was lost sight of by the Trial Court. In any event, for a long time no witness supposedly spoke about accused Awdhesh. Though the village Chowkidar, Ram Ratan (PW-3) reported the matter to the police station on the basis of which Crime case No.30 was registered, no one was named as accused and the case was registered against unknown persons. Only when a written report was submitted by Har Prasad (PW-2) to the investigating officer, name of respondent was indicated alongwith Babu Singh and Jhallar Singh. It was pointed out that though PW-2 was shouting that three named persons were committing dacoity, in the report submitted by PW-3 the names were not given. Reference was also made to the evidence of Ram Lakhan (PW-4) who admitted that he never mentioned the names of the three persons whose names appeared in the report given by PW-2. With reference to the evidence of Smt. Sheo Sakhi, the High Court noticed that she 5 did not know Awdesh, yet stated as if she was acquainted with him. Her statement in the cross examination was highlighted by the High Court. Similar was the position regarding Smt. Ram Rati (PW-12). The investigating officer stated that when he was going to the place of occurrence, he had met the deceased and two other persons who received injuries in the occurrence. They were Mahesh Chandra and Smt. Mahabiria. He had a talk with them and he sent them for medical examination. But till that time also the names of Awdhesh, Babu Singh and Jhallar Singh were not disclosed. Primarily, on these premises the High Court directed acquittal.

5. The High Court also referred to the fact that while some of the alleged dacoits covered their faces to conceal the identity; the three named accused persons who were known did not try to cover their faces.

8 (4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.

(emphasis supplied)

(emphasis supplied) 31

42. In the present case, though the judgment is not happily worded and some of the reasonings are not legally supportable but the ultimate conclusion is a possible view. That being so, we decline to interfere in this appeal which is dismissed. The bail bond executed in the present case by the respondent shall stand discharged.