- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against a judgment dated 06.11.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court Nos. 1, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 310 of 2009 under Section , and read with I.P.C. recording acquittal of all other co -accused except Zafar Ahmed Khan alias Chanda Khan.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for appellants and perused the materials on record. Learned State Counsel submitted that on the same set of evidence accused Zafar Ahmed Khan alias Chanda Khan has been held guilty of offences under Section IPC, Section / Arms Act and other charges, whereas the co -accused respondents (herein) have been acquitted of all the charges. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was a motive on the part of accused -respondents to commit the murder of deceased for the reason that in some other case relating to Ishtiyaq Ahmad, cousin of the deceased, accused -respondents (herein) were facing trial, and the said trial was being prosecuted by the deceased. In view of a clear motive supported by the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial court has misread the prosecution evidence in recording acquittal.
(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions of learned State Counsel and we find that the deceased had a criminal past with a number of criminal cases as pointed out in trial Court's judgment to his discredit. Besides, he was a tall and well built person with 6 Ft. 2 inch height, therefore, it was not possible for the accused persons to have over -powered him physically without causing serious assaults like gunshot injury particularly when the accused persons were carrying DBBL Guns and country made pistols. But there is no such injury except the one which is attributed to Zafar Ahmed Khan alias Chanda Khan who was alleged to have fired from the point blank range from his country made pistol into the head of deceased because of which he died on way to hospital. We also notice that in the case of murder of Ishtiyaq, cousin of the deceased, the accused -respondents, who are the real brothers and one being son of Shahjad Hasan Khan are facing trial. Thus, there was no reason that the deceased, who was only a cousin, should have pursued the criminal trial of the deceased who was not even a member of his family. Therefore, only on the basis of such a remote motive, it was not possible for the trial court to have recorded conviction of co -accused -respondents (herein), even though the same witnesses have been believed in respect of the role assigned to accused appellant Zafar Ahmed Khan alias Chanda Khan. It appears to be a case of large scale false implication, and the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondents (herein).;