Point of Law:
It is true that prosecution is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, but that does not mean that decree of proof must be beyond shadow of doubt. Doubts would be called reasonable, if they are free from zest for abstract speculation. In the present case, argument of learned counsel for appellant is not of that much degree to create any doubt for giving benefit, what to say a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Ram Krishna Gautam, J.

1. This criminal appeal, under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed by Ghanshyam Chaudhary and Vishwanath, against judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2007 made by Court of Additional District and Session Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Basti, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2005 (State Vs. Ghanshyam Chaudhary and another) connected with Session Trial No. 151 of 2005 (State Vs. Ghanshyam Chaudhary), arising out of Case Crime No. 678 of 2004 of P.S. Walterganj, District Basti, for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Case Crime No. 495 of 2004, under Section 25 of Arms Act, of Police Station Sonha, District Basti, wherein, both of convict appellants Ghanshyam Chaudhary and Vishwanath have been convicted and sentenced with rigorous life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, each and in case of default in payment of fine, they are to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for each, and in connected Sessions Trial No. 151 of 2005 (State Vs. Ghanshyam Chaudhary), appellant Ghanshyam Chaudhary, has been acquitted for offence punishable under Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act.

2. Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava and Nikhilesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the convict-appellants, argued by pressing grounds of appeal, given in memo of appeal that impugned judgment and sentence is against the evidence on record. Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Presence of witnesses appears to be doubtful and they have not seen the occurrence. They were fabricated witnesses. None of the witnesses were present at the time of incident. Appellants have been named in the FIR because of some ulterior motive and suspicion. They are of no concern with occurrence. There was no motive for them to commit this offence. Hence, this appeal with a prayer for allowing this appeal and thereby quashing impugned judgment and conviction made therein.

3. Smt. Manju Thakur, learned AGA, argued that it was a murder, committed by convict-appellants, by giving assault over deceased, having eye witness account of same, for which instant report was got lodged. After investigation, charge-sheet for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, against both of appellants Ghanshyam Chaudhary and Vishwanath and in connected session trial against Ghanshyam Chaudhary for offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act was submitted. Cognizance over it was taken. Magistrate had committed file to Court of Sessions, where, trial was held and all material evidences along with material exhibits were proved and exhibited. Then after statements under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were got recorded and after hearing of arguments of learned counsel for both sides, impugned judgment of conviction, in Session Trial No. 16 of 2005, was passed against both of convict-appellants Ghanshyam Chaudhary and Vishwanath, whereas, judgment of acquittal in Session Trial No. 151 of 2005 was there. After hearing over quantum of punishment, impugned sentence of rigorous life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10000/-, each and in default additional rigorous imprisonment of six months was imposed. This judgment of conviction and sentence made therein, was in accordance with evidence on record. No where trial Court failed to appreciate facts and law or apply appropriate proposition of law. Hence, this appeal merits its dismissal.

4. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and gone through record of trial court including impugned judgment, prosecution version surfaced was that First Information Report Ex. Ka-2, was presented before Station Officer of Police Station Walterganj, District Basti, by informant Tilak Ram, son of Katai, r/o Kakarhiya, P.S. Sonaha, District Basti, with this contention that his sister, Indramati, was married 15 years back with Ram Pratap, r/o village Pachasi, P.S. Sonaha, District Basti. Ram Pratap was Gram Sevak and a Government servant, who died issueless on 4.9.