The appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to do so, such as a palpably wrong conclusion, an erroneous view of law, or a likely grave miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 378 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'Cr.P.C.'), at the behest of the State, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.1.1993, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun, at Orai, in Criminal Case No.145 of 1992 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Badri Lodhi ), under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, whereby the learned trial-court acquitted the accused-respondent.

2. The brief facts of this case are that in the night intervening between May 7 & 8, 1992 at about mid-night in village Dhamni, Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun the accused Badri Lodhi shot dead by fire arm the son of the informant when the deceased was sleeping on cot in the front of his shop.

3. The case was registered at Police Station Kotwali Orai on 8.5.1992 at 3:30 a.m. The written report is said to have been scribed by Sukh Lal Chamar of village Dhamni. It is claimed by the prosecution that at that time the first informant Tundey reached the police station to make over the said written FIR to the police on the basis of which the chik was scribed being Ex.Ka. 3 and the case was registered in the G.D. Vide Ex.Ka. 4. It was alleged by Tundey in Ex.Ka. 2 that he was Chamar by caste and that in the village there were complaints of easy virtues of the wife of Maheshwari Lodhi and it was generally said by the persons in the village that the said wife of Maheshwari Lodhi was maintaining illicit illusion relation with the son of complainant and due to this the accused was having enmity with the deceased, the son of Tundey. It was averred in the FIR that on account of this reason accused Badri Lodhi was harbouring animosity against the deceased and therefore, in the relevant night of the incident at about dead of night when the deceased was sleeping on a cot infront of his shop where the electricity was burning, the accused holding a gun in his hand came from eastern direction and with a view eliminating the deceased discharged a fire on the deceased injuring him in the right side of abdomen. The version in the FIR onwards was that on the outcries of the deceased, Tundey, his wife and his younger brother Sant Ram as also witness Chhakki immediately reached the spot and saw that the accused was running away towards west having shot at the deceased, who could not be apprehended despite efforts being made by Tundey and others. After the incident, the injured was taken to hospital but he breathed his lost on the way at Orai. It was alleged that the dead body was kept in the hospital and villagers were present.

4. On the basis of this written report, a case was registered against the accused by by the informant-Tundey (PW-2) at Police Station Kotwali Orai on 8.5.1992 at 3:30 a.m. After registration of the case, the investigation followed. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, visited the site and prepared the site-plan. After investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case submitted charge-sheet against the accused-Badri Lodhi.

5. Accused-Badri Lodhi was charged under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case being exclusively triable by court of session was committed for trial to the court of session by competent Magistrate. Accused person denied charges and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution produced following witnesses, namely:

7. In support of the ocular version of the witnesses, following documents were produced and contents were proved by leading ev