The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the principle of enmity can influence the outcome of a case. Cross-cases should be decided together to avoid conflicting judgments.

JUDGMENT :

1. None responded for the revisionist even on the revised call and also none appeared on behalf of opposite party nos. 2 to 5. Since a criminal revision has to be decided on merit, therefore, heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar learned A.G.A. for the State, perused the record and thereafter revision is decided on merit.

2. This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 7.10.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, IIIrd, Bijnor, in S.T. No. 122 of 1999 arising out of Case Crime No. 94 -A of 1996, under Section 307, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Noorpur, District- Bijnor.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that informant,Yashpal Singh, moved a complaint to P.S. Noorpur to lodge an F.I.R. on 19.4.1996 that due to enmity when the informant with his son Narendra Singh and nephews Jaipal and Gopal was on his field, the accused Hukum Singh, Chandrapal Singh, Tikam Singh and Digvijay Singh armed with illegal gun and country made pistol reached there. Hukum Singh exhorted other accused persons to kill them on which all the accused persons fired towards them. They laid down on the ground and saved themselves. Pratap Singh and Sukhpal Singh and others witnessed the incident. On being challenged by them, accused persons left the place with a threat to kill them.

4. The complaint, Ex. Ka-1, was entertained and an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 94-A of 1996 under Section 307, 504 and 506 was lodged and chik, Ex. Ka-2, was prepared. The I.O. was deputed who recorded the statements of the victim and other witnesses, prepared site plan, Ex Ka-3 and submitted charge-sheet Ex.Ka-4 against the accused persons and charge-sheet, Ex.Ka-5, against Digvijay Singh. After preparation of chik F.I.R., carbon copy G.D., Ex. Ka-6, was prepared.

5. The accused persons appeared in the Court and were enlarged on bail. The learned trial Court framed the charge on 18.5.1999 under the aforesaid sections.

6. The prosecution examined following witnesses to prove its case:

7. The prosecution closed the evidence as from the side of defence, execution of documentary evidences were accepted and they were exhibited. The statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they denied the prosecution version, evidence and stated that they were falsely implicated on account of political rivalry.

8. In defence, accused persons submitted a carbon copy of the chik F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 94 of 1996 under Section 307 & 506 I.P. C. and certified copy of its charge-sheet, site plan, injury reports of Tikam Singh, Yashpal Singh, Chandrapal Singh and concerned G.D. were produced.

9. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the impugned judgment of acquittal was passed.

10. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been preferred by the informant-revisionist on the following grounds:

(a) that the trial court has acquitted the accused persons without considering the evidence on record which is bad in the eye of law;

(b) the trial court has erred in discarding the evidence of eye witnesses without any reasonable explanation, the findings are perverse and illegal.

(c) the trial court has not given any finding as to which party was aggressor;

(d) the incident occurred near the field of the revisionist which shows that the accused persons were aggressor and this fact is also established from the site plan;

(e) the opposite party nos. 2 to 5/accused persons are inimical with the revisionist due to village politics that is why they have reached on the field of the revisionist with their weapons and opened fire on him and his relatives while they were working on their field;

(f) there is no explanation of the presence of the accused persons on the spot at the time of the incident;

(g) the trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused persons without