The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the presence of a source of light for identification in a night-time incident, and the importance of proving the authenticity of the F. I. R. and addressing contradictions in witness statements.

O. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 29-3-1995, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao, convicting the appellants under Section 307 read with 34 I. P. C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused appellants and one Raees inflicted injuries on the informant Ambika Prasad (P. W. 1) by means of Lathi and Danda on 27-6-1988 at about 10. 00 p. m. in the night. The F. I. R. regarding this incident was lodged at P. S. Kotwali, District Unnao in the same night at 10. 45 p. m. The injuries of Ambika Prasad were examined the same night at 11. 35 p. m. by Dr. J. Singh (P. W. 3 ). He found five lacerated wounds, one abraded and one contusion. Injuries other than Nos. 1 and 2 were found to be simple, X-ray of injury Nos. 1 and 2 was advised. On X-ray, the fracture on the parietal bone was detected. The case was registered in the G. D. During investigation, site plan was prepared and filed and the accused persons were charge sheeted under Sections 323, 325, 308,504 I. P. C. However, after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 307/34 I. P. C. against the appellants and one Raees.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined injured/informant Ambika Prasad (P. W. 1) who unfolded the prosecution case. In corroboration of the statement, Saraswati Prasad (P. W 2) was also examined by the prosecution. Dr. J. Singh (P. W. 3) proved the injury report. Sri T. N. Pandey (P. W. 6) was X-ray technician

who proved the X-ray report. S. I. Chhote Lal Jatav (P. W. 7) was Investigating Officer, who proved the site plan and the charge sheet submitted by S. I. A. K. Dubey.

4. Upon consideration of the material on record,. the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the case against the appellants under Section 307/34 I. P. C. proved. Consequently the appellants were convicted. However, Raees was acquitted.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A. G. A.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that although the incident is said to have taken place in the night at about 10. 00 p. m. but neither in the F. I. R. nor in the evidence before the Court, the prosecution established that there was any source of light. It has also been argued that the F. I. R. was not lodged by the informant as alleged by the prosecution and the same has not been proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants has referred to some contradiction also in the statement of the witnesses of the fact.

7. Learned A. G. A. argued that since the appellants were known to the informant, there could not be any difficulty in identifying him even if there was no sufficient light available in the place of incident.

8. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence. No source of light has been indicated in the F. I. R. and both the witnesses have not stated anything about the source of light, rather they have stated that it was a dark night. So far as the argument of learned A. G. A. is concerned, there would not have been any difficulty on the part of the informant and the witnesses to have recognised the accused persons, it is true that known person can easily recognise in darkness but informant and the witnesses have not stated how they recognised them. When informant was beaten in the darkness as has been admitted by both the witnesses in case of absence of light it was necessary for them to have stated as to how in darkness appellants were recognised. In absence of any reason as to how they recognised them in absence of source of light in the dark night, the benefit of doubt would go to the accused persons. Since, in absence of any source of light, the witnesses did not state reason as to how they recognised, in my opinion, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Learned A. G.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document