The main legal point established is the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, the admissibility of evidence of chance witnesses, and the limitations of an inquest report.

Aniruddha Singh, J.

This Criminal appeal has been nominated to me as third Judge by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice vide order dated 18.2.2019. In compliance thereof, heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri P.K. Srivastava and Sri Hari Pratap Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocates and perused the record.

2. This Criminal appeal was heard and decided by Hon'ble S.K. Agarwal, J. and Hon'ble K.K. Misra, J. vide order dated 8.8.2003. Due to difference of opinion, this appeal was nominated to me/this Court.

3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 29.9.1980 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 266 of 1978 (State vs. Chhotey Lal Yadav), Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad convicting Chhotey Lal Yadav under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to imprisonment for life.

4. In the nutshell, case of prosecution is that an FIR was lodged on 20.5.1978 at 11: 30 A.M. against Chhotey Lal Yadav alleging that on 20.5.1978 at 9:30 A.M. he killed Gopal Ji Rawat by shooting him at his house No. 44/56 Hewett Road, Police Station Kotwali, District Allahabad due to previous enmity and fled away from the spot. It is further alleged that deceased was witness in the case of murder of his friend and business partner Heera Lal Shukla and he was threatened by Panna Lal Yadav not to depose evidence against accused Ram Sajiwan @ Lalloo in that case before the Court and filed an affidavit in his favour. Chhotey Lal Yadav (brother of Panna Lal Yadav) had friendly terms with Gopal Ji Rawat and had taken loan of Rs.4000/-from him on the occasion of marriage of his sister before two months from the date of incident. When Chhotey Lal Yadav came in close contact with Ram Sajiwan @ Lalloo and Panna Lal, it was not liked by deceased Gopal Ji Rawat, he called Chhotey Lal Yadav, suggested him to remain on one side and asked him to return the money. The appellant Chhotey Lal Yadav told him that he would reply him soon and due to that reason Gopal Ji Rawat was shot dead. He received three gunshot ante-mortem injuries caused by single fire.

5. Case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was submitted. After framing of charge, prosecution examined P.W.1 Nanhey Rawat(complainant), P.W.-2 S.I. Ram Asrey Singh who conducted autopsy, P.W.3 Rajendra Prasad Keshrwani alias Dade, P.W.-4 Head Moharrir Sharafat Ali, P.W.-5 Constable No. 683 C.P. Ram Pal, P.W.6 Dr. P.L. Nigam, P.W.-7 S.B. Lal, P.W.8 Ram Singh Tiwari and P.W.-9 Madan Mishra.

6. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied charges and stated that he has been falsely implicated. He specifically stated that Gopal Ji Rawat was not the witness of the so called murder case and that was another Gopal Ji, son of Mahadev, who was residing in Bombay. He further stated that he was falsely implicated by the I.O. because he was supplying milk to the I.O. and enhanced the rate of milk from Rs.2/- per liter to Rs.3/- per liter and Gopal Ji Rawat was the thief and doing the business of smuggling.

7. After hearing learned counsel for accused appellant as well as District Government Counsel, impugned order was passed. Hence this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned judgment and order is against evidence on record and appellant has been convicted on the basis of conjecture and surmises. There are several grounds such as witnesses of facts i.e. P.W.1-Nanhey Rawat and P.W.3-Rajendra Prasad Kesharwani were not present at the time of incident and they are interested and chance witnesses. F.I.R. was lodged ante timed. P.W.1-Nanhey Rawat is residing in another house and P.W.3-Rajendra Prasad Kesharwani is not the resident of the same area where the deceased was residing. He was not family member of the deceased. There are major contradictions between the statements of witnesses as well as in the postmortem report of deceased and injury reports.

9. Learned A