The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of independent witness corroboration and inconsistencies in the recovery undermine the prosecution's case.

Kalimullah Khan, J.: -

We have heard Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. appearing for the appellant-State, and Sri G.R.S. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused. Perused the record.

2. This government appeal is preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C. on behalf of State of U.P. against the accused-respondents, namely Nawab son of Ashik Husain and Gandhi Rana son of Moti Rana. The appellant challenges the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.1984 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Badaun in S.T. No. 59 of 1984.

3. As per report of C.J.M. Badaun, dated 17.4.2012 and order of the Court dated 9.7.2012, accused-respondent no. 2, Gandhi Rana has died during pendency of appeal hence, appeal against him is abated.

4. The accused-respondents were put on trial for the charges under Sections 392/397 and Section 411 I.P.C. by the Police Station-Kotwali, District-Badaun and acquitted by the impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.1984, aforesaid.

5. The prosecution case before the sessions court in brief was that on 25.6.1983 complainant Mohar Singh along with Malik Jalil Ahmad Tonkbala were going to Astana Alia Tonknagla at about 9.00 A.M., two accused persons appeared and one of them put his tamancha on the chest of Mohara Singh and directed to handover all his belongings and also threatened to kill him if he raised any hue and cry. His other companion standing with tamancha, snatched his purse containing Rs.120/- or 125/- and certain documents and the wrist watch. Accused persons also took a search of Jalil Ahmad but nothing was found on his person. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away towards Sahbajpur. On an alarm being raised by the complainant, some member of the public reached there and chased the assailants, but due to fear of tamancha they were unable to apprehend them.

6. Subsequently, complainant Mohar Singh lodged a first information report of the incident at Police Station- Kotwali, District-Badaun at about 9.35 A.M. on 25.6.1983 naming accused Nawab with his address under Section 392 I.P.C..

7. On an information received from the informer that two accused persons were standing near the Kothi of Harish Chandra Singh, the police party proceeded along with informer. When the accused persons saw the police party, they tried to run away, but complainant and other members of public succeeded in arresting the accused persons during which some injuries were caused to the accused persons by the police in their self defence as accused are said to have fired with their country made pistol at police personnel.

8. On their search, Nawab was found in his possession of a Purse of Mohar Singh containing Rs.120/- and an extract of Khatauni. A tamancha and three live cartridges were also recovered from his possession. From the possession of Gandhi Rana, wrist watch of Mohar Singh, one tamancha and four live cartridges, were also recovered.

9. After recovery, the relevant recovery memos were prepared and the case was investigated and charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 392/411 IPC and a separate charge sheet was also submitted under Section 397 IPC against them which was tried in Sessions Trial No. 403 of 1983: State of U.P. Vs. Nawab and Gandhi Rana, Sessions Trial No. 404 of 1983: State of U.P. Vs. Gandhi Rana under Section 25 of Arms Act, and Sessions Trial No. 405 of 1983: State of U.P. Vs. Nawab under Section 25/27 of Arms Act. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed their trial.

10. The prosecution in support of its case examined Mohar Singh (P.W. 1), Malik Jalil Ahmad (P.W. 2) and V.S. Yadav (P.W. 3).

11. On appreciation of the facts and evidence on record, the sessions court acquitted all the accused persons by the impugned judgment and order dated 4.7.1984, mainly on the grounds; that besides the two victims prosecution did not produce any independent witness although these two witnesses admitted that other witnesses from public