The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and clear evidence is required to support the charges.

JUDGMENT :

RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., has been filed by Narendra, son of Lala Ram, Brajesh, son of Genda Lal and Pintoo alias Surendra Singh, son of Rajbahadur, against judgment of conviction dated 30.3.2010, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 2, Mainpuri, in S.T. No. 30 of 2006, State Vs. Narendra and others, u/s 147, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with 3(1)(x) SC/ ST Act, related with Case Crime No. 321 of 2004, P.S. Bhogaon, District Mainpuri, and sentence made therein, whereby appellants, along with co-accused Kalyan and Genda Lal, were convicted for offences punishable u/s 147, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and accused-appellant Narendra was further convicted in addition to those conviction for offence punishable u/s 354 I.P.C. and after hearing over quantum of sentence convict Kalyan and Genda Lal were released on probation of good conduct, under their physical ailment and old year age, but present appellants Narendra, Brajesh and Pintoo alias Surendra Singh were sentenced with one year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default 15 days simple imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 147 I.P.C., six months R.I. with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default 7 days simple imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 323 I.P.C., two years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default one month's simple imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 325 I.P.C., one year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default 15 days simple imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 452 I.P.C., one year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default 15 days simple imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 504 I.P.C., two years' R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default one month's simple imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 506 I.P.C. with further sentence of convict appellant Narendra with one year's R.I. with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default 15 days simple imprisonment for offence punishable u/s 354 I.P.C. Each of the convict appellants as well as co-accused Genda Lal and Kalyan, who were enlarged on probation of two years, were acquitted for charge levelled against them for offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act.

2. Heard Sri Alkesh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri K. K. Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State.

3. The grounds of appeal, taken in memo of appeal and argued at Bar by learned counsel for appellants, were that, the trial court failed to appreciate the facts and law placed before it and impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was against weight of evidence on record. Prosecution has failed to prove its case, but impugned judgment was passed with no substantial evidence in support of it. F.I.R. was lodged against appellants u/s 147, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with 3(1)(x) SC/ ST Act and after appreciation of evidence charge levelled for offence 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act was not found established against the appellants. There was no independent eyewitness account of alleged incident, rather witnesses examined were highly interested witnesses and were not trustworthy, because the injury reports are highly improbable and prepared after consultation with doctors; in which duration of injuries were improbable. Prosecution failed to prove assault of criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, even then conviction u/s 354 I.P.C. was made. No case of insult, intended to provoke breach of peace, was initially mentioned. But conviction for same is there. There was no motive for commission of those assaults. Injuries to Sunita Devi were not disclosed by prosecution nor she was present at the place of occurrence, whereas those injuries said to be sustained by Sunita are highly improbable and fraudulently manufactured. Hence this appeal with prayer for setting aside impugned judgment dated 30.3.2010 of conviction and sentence awarded therein and thereby request for awarding acquittal of charges levelled against appellants.

4. From