Prem Chandra Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Krishna Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned Counsel for the opposite parties and learned A.G.A.

This revision has been filed against judgment and order dated 18.7.1989, passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, whereby the accused were acquitted u/s 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that there was sufficient evidence on record for conviction but the learned lower court committed illegality in not believing the testimony of witnesses of fact. It is contended that only because the complainant Smt. Gausia Parveen wife of deceased did not mention in the F.I.R. that fires were made, it cannot be held that a testimony was not believable. I am not convinced with this contention because if the complainant was present and if she had seen the occurrence, it was not possible that she will name only the accused persons who were armed with garasi and farsa but will not name the person who was carrying fire-arm and used fire-arm. The learned lower court did not commit any illegality in disbelieving of testimony of Gausia Parveen. I am not convinced with this contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionist because of shock, the complainant she could have forgotten to mention about the fire in the F.I.R. In her statement also she had not stated that fires were made by the accused Munna and at the time of recording the statement she could not be under shock. Therefore, it is clear that the case was developed at the stage of evidence and the learned lower court committed no illegality in rejecting the testimony of Smt. Gausia Parveen. She has named persons as eye-witnesses. Out of them Ahmad Ali was examined as P.W. 1 who had become hostile. The other witness was P.W. 2. The learned lower court has also disbelieved the presence of P.W. 2 on the spot. Further, a perusal of the statement of P.W. 2 also shows that his testimony does not inspire confidence. Thus, the learned lower court did not commit any illegality in acquitting the accused person. There is no force in this revision, which is hereby dismissed.