Court No. - 51

Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 391 of 2019

Appellant :- State of U.P.

Respondent :- Mulla Alias Sonpal And 3 Ors.

Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

1.

Heard learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and

perused the lower court record with the assistance of the

learned A.G.A.

2.

The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment

and order dated 3 April 2019 passed by Additional District and

Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-First, Kasganj, in Sessions Trial

No. 150 of 2015 (State vs. Mulla @ Sonapl and others),

acquitting the accused respondents.

3.

P.W.-1 More Mukut, father of the deceased Shiv Kumar in

his complaint stated that on 15 April 2015 his son Shiv Kumar

(deceased) and his uncle (mama) Ram Nivas and Baba Ram

Muni were sleeping at the Ashram. On 16 April 2015 at 5:00

in morning when he went to the Ashram, Baba Ram Muni

informed that at about 1:00 am in night three unknown

persons had caused injury to Shiv Kumar and Ram Nivas. They

succumbed to the injury. The complainant further stated that

on screaming a large number of people gathered and informed

that Baba Balak Das was also murdered by unknown accused

persons, whose body was recovered from the track near the

Ashram.

4.

Injured Shiv Kumar succumbed to the injury during

treatment at the hospital. The second FIR came to be lodged

on 30 April 2015 by P.W.-3 Ram Prakash, (son of the deceased

Shiv Kumar) nominating two accused viz. Ramu and Gajraj

(accused respondent nos. 3 and 4) of having committed the

crime along with others. He further stated that injured Ram

Nivas was taken to the medical college, he succumbed to the

injury on 26 April 2015. Body of Baba Balak Das was

recovered from near the canal outside the temple and his

vehicle Vikki (Scooty) was found near the body. P.W.-3

expressed suspicion on the nominated accused in commission of

the offence as they were last seen with lathi, danda and

firearm weapon by Gajraj. After investigation the police report

came to be submitted under Section 307, 302, 394, 411 IPC

against the accused-respondents.

The accused-respondents were summoned to face trial

under Sections 307/34, 302/34, 394, 411 IPC. The prosecution

to prove the charge against the accused-respondents examined

P.W.-1 More Mukut (complainant), P.W.-2 Babu Ram Muni

(injured eye-witness), P.W.-3 Ram Prakash (son of the deceased

and complainant of the second FIR), P.W.-4 Mahendra Pal and

P.W.-5 Om Prakash (both witnesses of the Ferd/Recovery),

P.W.-6 Nandram (witness of inquest), P.W.7 Virendra Singh

(witness of inquest), P.W.8 Chote Lal (injured eye-witness),

P.W.-9 Bhuvnesh Kumar, P.W.-10 to P.W.-14 are formal

witnesses (police officials).

5.

In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the

accused-respondents denied the charge and stated that they

have been falsely implicated on the false statement made by

P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and other witnesses. Motive assigned to the

accused-respondent was that the granddaughter of P.W.-1

(Kashmira) was having affair with Ramu (accused-respondent

2 of 4

no. 3). On the intervention of the panchayat the girl returned

to the family and since then the complainant was enimical

with the accused-respondent nos. 3 and 4, who are real

brothers. The trial court upon considering the prosecution

evidence and materials placed during trial was of the opinion

that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the

accused-respondents beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly, the

accused-respondents were acquitted. Hence, the instant appeal.

6.

P.W.-1 is not an eye-witness, he lodged the FIR against

unknown persons on information received after reaching the

spot. Fifteen days later P.W.-3 lodged an FIR nominating

accused-respondents no. 3 and 4 of having been involved in

commission of the offence. P.W.-2 is the injured wit