IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of innocence is paramount, and appellate courts must respect trial court findings unless clear errors are demonstrated.

JUDGMENT :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)

1. The instant criminal appeals have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

Criminal Appeal No. 733/2013 by State:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this leave to appeal may kindly be granted and appeal may kindly be allowed. The impugned judgment dated 17.04.2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused respondents may kindly be convicted and sentenced as per the provision of law.”

Criminal Appeal No. 483/2013 by complainant-Pushkar Ram:

“It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed under the facts and the circumstances of the case that, this appeal of the appellant may very kindly be allowed and the judgment impugned dated 17-04-2013 passed in the criminal appeal no.1/2010 may very kindly be quashed and set aside, that the accused may be convicted suitably for their offences as mentioned herein above and as mentioned in the charge-sheet of the case, that the heavy compensation may also be awarded to the appellant, any other relief which is just and proper in the favor of the appellant may also be passed.”

2. The appellants herein i.e., State & the complainant laid a challenge to the judgment and order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh (‘Trial Court’), in Sessions Case No.01/2010 (State v. Balveer & Ors.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents of the charges against them in the following manner:

3. The matters pertains to an incident which had occurred in the year 2009 and the present appeals have been pending since the year 2013.

4. At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that accused-respondent Ramnarayan has expired on 28.11.2019, which is reflected in the copy of the death certificate produced before this Court. The said copy of the death certificate is taken on record. Thus, in light of the same, the instant appeals qua deceased accused-respondent Ramnarayan stand dismissed for having abated.

4.1. Accordingly, the present adjudication is made only to the extent of surviving accused-respondents namely, Balveer, Smt. Geeta Bai, Ms. Uma and Bharat.

5. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel representing the appellants, are that on 07.11.2009 at about 11:15 PM, a written report (Ex.P-1) was submitted by one Pushkar (complainant), stating therein that on the said day, at about 8:30 PM, accused-respondents namely Balveer, Ram Narayan, Bharat, Uma, Geeta Bai and Radha Bai, armed with lathi, sword, knife, and dhariye, had unlawfully entered the residential premises of Pushkar (complainant) at Devkhera; at that time, the complainant’s father Ramlal, mother Narayanidevi, younger brother Arjun and Arjun’s wife Santosh, were inside the house.

5.1. It was further stated in the report that accused-Balveer attacked Narayanidevi with a knife on abdomen above her waist, accused-Bharat caused injury by knife to Santosh on her chest; accused-Bharat also inflicted blow by dhariya on the head of Arjun; accused-Ramnarayan caused injury by knife on the right side of the chest of Ramlal; Pushkar himself was injured by accused-Uma with knife and lathi. The complainant shouted and raised an alarm, whereupon the persons, namely, Mohan Singh, Gopal Das, Rajkumar and Mubarik, who at the relevant time, present at the place of incident (which was prop