The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing charges beyond reasonable doubt, the inadmissibility of subsequent information in evidence, and the need for self-restraint in interfering with the trial court's judgment.

Headnote:
Second FIR - Criminal Procedure - Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. - 302/34 IPC - 162 Cr.P.C. - [Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, (2013) 6 SCC 348, State of M.P. v. Ratan Singh, (2020) 12 SCC 630, Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 6 SCC 213]
Fact of the Case:

The appellant-State sought leave to file appeal against the judgment and order acquitting the respondent-accused from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC. The prosecution case alleged that the accused-respondents had killed the deceased due to animosity arising from a previous election of Gram Pradhan. The court below acquitted the accused persons, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the charges against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The court also rejected the alleged motive of the accused persons and the discrepancy in the time of the incident, concluding that the judgment and order of acquittal did not suffer from any infirmity.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, admissibility of subsequent information, and the credibility of the witnesses' testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles regarding Second FIR, the prohibition against using statements made to police in the course of investigation, and the need for self-restraint in interfering with the trial court's judgment unless it suffers from perversity or leads to a miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The application seeking leave to file an appeal was rejected, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard the learned AGA on the application seeking leave to file appeal under Section 378 (3) Cr.P.C.

2. By means of the instant application, the appellant-State has sought leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.01.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baghpat in Session Trial No. 330 of 2004 (State vs. Rmesh and another) acquitting the respondent-accused from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC.

3. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 26.06.2004 at 01:30 a.m., the informant Leela Singh son of Kale Singh lodged a report (Exhibit A-1) alleging that on 25.06.2004 at 08:30 p.m., Karan Singh came to his house and informed that somebody had stabbed the informant’s brother Jaidayal in Naiyon Wali Gali and he is lying there. The informant and his family members went there and he took his brother in a Maruti Car to Narendra Mohan Hospital, where the doctors examined and reported him to be dead. After putting the dead body in mortuary, he went to lodge the report. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case was registered against unknown accused persons.

4. On 27.06.2004, the informant gave another report (Exhibit A-2) stating that after cremation of the dead body of his brother, people were visiting his home and were talking about the murder of his brother Jaidayal, from which he came to know that his brother had been killed by the accused Dheeraj and Ramesh, both sons of Durjan Singh, due to animosity of previous election of Gram Pradhan. A short while before his murder, the deceased Jaidayal had stopped at the shop of Karan Singh and thereafter he was coming home through Naiyon Wali Gali and Radhe son of Chetan had seen the accused-respondents Dheeraj and Ramesh following the deceased in the lane. After Jaidayal got injured, the accused Dheeraj and Ramesh were seen running towards his shop in great haste, by Gajendra son of Jaipal Singh and Karmveer Singh son of Shakru Singh. At that time only, the informant came to know that after losing the elections the accused-respondents had stated many times that although they had lost the election, they would not let Jaidayal complete the five years’ term. The informant got this information from Ramesh son of Gopi and Sakru son of Khushi Ram. In the second information, the informant stated that he could not mention these facts in the FIR as at that time he did not know these facts.

5. On this subsequent information, a case was registered against the accused-respondents Ramesh and Dheeraj. After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the accused-respondents under Section 302/34 IPC. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 -Leela Singh -the informant, who is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 1 supported the allegations levelled in the FIR as well as subsequent information on which the case was registered.

6. P.W.2 – Gajendra was produced as an ocular witness who stated that in the evening of 25-06-2004 he was returning home from Devi Mandir and Karmveer was accompanying him. When P.W.2 and Karmveer were passing through Naiyon Wali Gali at about 08:30 p.m., they saw that the respondent no.2 – Dheeraj had caught hold of the deceased Jaidayal and the respondent no.1 - Ramesh was stabbing him. At the same time, Mukesh and Leelu also came there carrying a torch and they challenged the accused persons, whereupon the accused persons left Jaidayal and walked away from the side of the P.W.2. Jaidayal’s wife Rajwati had defeated Dheeraj’s wife-Babli in election of Gram Pradhan due to which Dheeraj was annoyed with Jaidayal and he used to say that he will not let him complete the five years’ term.

7. P.W. 3 is the Sub-Inspector who had prepared the inquest report in the hospital’s mortuary. P.W.4 is the Constable-Clerk who has registered the report. P.W.5 is the doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination on the deceased’s dead body, who stated that the deceased died of stab wounds. P.W.6 is the Inves