The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for circumstantial evidence to be cogently and firmly established, forming a complete chain that rules out any reasonable likelihood of the accused's innocence. The judgment also emphasizes the need for the prosecution to prove motive in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. None appeared for the revisionist. Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record. Since the criminal revision can not be dismissed in default, hence this revision is being decided on merit.

2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal passed in S.T. No. 630 of 2005 (State vs. Ram Chandra and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 333 of 2004 under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Bhuta, Bareilly, by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. XI, Bareilly on 9.1.2009.

3. In brief, the revision has been filed on the grounds that Additional Session Judge has not considered all the facts and circumstances and acquitted respondent no. 1 which is not correct in the eyes of law. He has not passed the judgment in accordance with criminal law, hence, the impugned judgment be set aside and revision be allowed.

4. In brief facts of the case are that informant-revisionist (PW-1) Fida Hussain lodged an F.I.R. that on 14.7.2004, he along with his sons Pappu @ Israr (deceased), Iqbal (PW-2) and one Noor Hasan was sitting near pumping set. In the night at about 8:30 p.m. Bihari son of Khandari came there and asked the deceased to go to Mirzapur with him. As soon as deceased reached near the sugarcane field of Mohan Lal, informant heard voice of deceased and sound of fire. He with his son Iqbal Hussain and Noor Hasan rushed there and saw accused Ram Chandra, Uma Charan, Ram Autar and Bihari had surrounded his son Pappu and killed him by assaulting with Gupti (dagger) and country made pistol, thereafter, accused persons ran towards jungle. The incident was witnessed and accused were recognized in the light of torch. On this written complaint, an F.I.R. was lodged at 10:00 p.m. in Police Station Bhuta. Yashpal Singh, was appointed as I.O. of the case who started investigation. He copied chick FIR, G.D. statement of scribe, statement of the informant in the night and on next date i.e. 15.7.2004 inspected the place of occurrence and prepared map (Ex. Ka-12), appointed punch and conducted inquest (Ex. Ka-5) prepared papers for post-mortem and sent dead body for autopsy. He also took blood stained and plain soil and prepared recovery memo (Ex. Ka-11). He also prepared recovery memo of torch (Ex. Ka-17); copied post mortem report (Ex. Ka-2); arrested accused persons and recorded their statements and recovered a country-made pistol of 12 bore with empty cartridges in its barrel on 16.7.2004 on the pointing out of the accused Ram Chandra and prepared its recovery memo (Ex. Ka-13); lodged F.I.R. at Crime No. 337 of 2004 under Section 25 of the Arms Act against accused Ram Chandra and submitted charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-16) under Section 302 I.P.C.

5. PW-7, S.I. Charan Singh, investigated the case under Section 25 Arms Act and copied chick FIR, G.D. statement of scribe and accused Ram Chandra, inspected the place of recovery and prepared map (Ex. Ka-18) and got prosecution sanction from District Magistrate (Ex. Ka-19) and submitted charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-20). Accused persons denied the charges and sought trial.

6. Prosecution examined following witness:

7. Prosecution submitted following documentary evidence: