BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J. - (1.) THE instant Government Appeal is preferred against judgement and order of acquittal dated 13.12.2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Special) Baghpat in Session Trial No.110 of 2005 arising out of case crime no.16 of 2003 State Vs. Rakesh and others under Sections 307, 452 I.P.C. Police Station Chhaprauli, District Baghpat. Government Appeal was connected with criminal revision no.792 of 2008 Shyam Sunder Vs. State of U.P. and others filed against acquittal.
(2.) WE have heard learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and perused the judgment of acquittal. Five accused/opposite parties are alleged to have caused injuries to Ram Saran father of first informant inside his house with an intention to kill him. Injured was crushed and given severe beating on account of which he became unconscious. Incident is alleged to have taken place on 9.2.2003 at 17:30 hours. It is further alleged that certain villagers got the injured admitted at 23:00 hours in community health centre Baraut and on the next day i.e. 10.2.2003 at 2:00 p.m., he was admitted in emergency ward in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Sahadra, Delhi. First informant is an employee in Ministry of Defence and posted in West Bengal and rest of his brothers reside in Delhi. First information report was registered after five days on 14.2.2003.
(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge has granted acquittal on a number of grounds:- (1) First is delay in lodging the first information report. (2) Narration in the first information report is that injuries were caused by gun, spear, sword and other weapons and the injured is alleged to have been crushed badly but there is no such injury report on record to substantiate injuries of the aforesaid weapons. (3) X-ray report as well as C.T. Scan and M.L.C. report are not proved. (4) First information report has also not been proved. PW-3 Shyam Sunder is not an eye witness of the occurrence. (5) PW-1 Ram Saran Das who was injured witness has not disclosed details of the incident to Shyam Sunder, therefore, court below was of the view that how could details of incident be mentioned in the first information report by the first informant who is admittedly not an eye witness. In view of non examination of various persons, neither injury report nor any supplementary injury report of X-ray, C.T. Scan was proved and, therefore, could not be read in evidence. (6) Injured himself admitted in his cross examination that police did not interrogate him at any point of time prior to the trial. Injured witness has only stated that one of the accused was armed with gun and rest of them with iron rods and Lathi and Danda. The entire story of sword, spear etc. is nowhere in the statement of the injured himself. (7) PW-3 Shyam Sunder who had lodged first information report, has admitted in the cross examination that the entire incident was narrated to him by his brother Suresh Kumar and his father had not disclosed anything about the incident. He was unconscious but when Suresh Kumar brother of the first informant was not present at the scene of incident, how could he disclose details of the incident. ;