M. C. Jain, J. - (1.) -This appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed by Sri V. K. Sirkar, the then Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 29.11.1980 in respect of seven respondents in S.T. No. 200 of 1978. Five of them faced trial for rioting under Section 147, I.P.C. while the remaining two were charged under Section 148, I.P.C. All of them were further charged under Sections 307, 324 and 323, I.P.C. each read with Section 149, I.P.C.
(2.) THE genesis of the prosecution case was the F.I.R. lodged at the concerned police station by Pitambar Lal P.W. 1 on 4.10.1976 at 00.10 a.m. THE incident had taken place the same night at 9.30 p.m. in front of Raghu Nath's house in village Malak Chaudhari, Police Station Soraon, district Allahabad, the distance of which from the police station was about four miles. The relevant facts may be stated shortly. Pitambar Lal P.W. 1 was the Village Pradhan of village for last more than 20 years and each time he was elected without contest. The accused-respondents Beni Din, Hanuman Dayal, Mahadeo, Suraj Prasad, Chitrakoot, Hari Ram and Lok Nath were also residents of the same village. About 5-6 months before the incident, the accused-respondents Beni Prasad and others had mooted no-confidence motion against Pitambar Lal P.W. 1, but the same was rejected on 15.6.1976 on voting. Hanuman Dayal had encroached upon the land belonging to the Gaon Sabha and as Pradhan Pitambar Lal P.W. 1 had started proceedings against him. Hanuman Dayal was evicted from the said land. For these reasons, the accused-respondents were inimically disposed against Pitambar Lal P.W. 1. Lok Nath and Chitrakoot are the sons of Hanuman Dayal ; Suraj Prasad and Mahadeo are real brothers ; Beni Din and Hari Ram are cousins and all were on friendly terms with each other. As per the prosecution case, on the date and time of the incident, Pitambar Lal P.W. 1, Bhunnan Lal, Keshav Prasad, Jagannath (injured) P.W. 2, Someshwar, Ram Kripal (injured), Chhotey Lal (injured) etc. were sitting,, at the door of Raghu Nath and they were conversing. A lighted petromax was kept nearby. All the accused-respondents reached there in a group. Lok Nath was armed with a gun ; Beni Din had a country-made pistol ; Hanuman Dayal had a spear ; Suraj Prasad and Chitrakoot had lathis ; Mahadeo and Hari Prasad had pharsas. With the hurling of abuses, they launched the attack. Ambika Prasad and Chhotey Lal received gun shot injuries ; Jagannath P.W. 2 received an incised wound ; Ram Kirpal and Bhullan Devi P.W. 3 received injuries of blunt object. Pitambar Lal P.W. 1 and others who were present at the door of Raghunath challenged and chased the accused-respondents. Near the house of Pitambar Lal P.W. 1, Bhullan Devi P.W. 3 assaulted the accused-respondent Lok Nath and was successful in snatching his gun. Thereupon Suraj Prasad accused-respondent assaulted her with lathi. The accused-respondents managed to escape. Thereafter, transport was arranged and all the injured were taken to the Police Station Soraon where the F.I.R. was lodged by Pitambar Lal P.W. 1 and the gun which had been snatched from Lok Nath by Bullan Devi P.W. 3 was also deposited. All the injured were interrogated and sent for medical examination. At the trial, prosecution examined Pitambar Lal P.W. 1, Jagannath (injured) P.W. 2, Bhullan Devi (injured) P.W. 3 and Bhunnan Lal alias Ambika Prasad P.W. 4 as eye-witnesses. Dr. P. L. Nigam P.W. 5 and R. P. Agnihotri Investigating Officer P.W. 6 were formal witnesses.
(3.) THE defence was of false implication on account of previous enmity. THE accused-respondents also examined Dr. P. L. Nigam as D.W. 1 for proving the injuries of Lok Nath. We have heard Sri S. K. Pal learned A.G.A. from the side of the State in support of the appeal and Sri Satyendra Singh, advocate from the side of respondents in opposition thereof. Learned A.G.A. has lambasted the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. It is submitted that as many as five persons sustained injuries in the incident, out of whom two, namely, Ambika Prasad P.W. 4 and Chhotey Lal had sustained gun-shot injuries. Pitambar Lal P.W. 1 informant, Jagannath (injured) P.W. 2, Bhullan Devi P.W. 3 and Ambika Prasad P.W. 4, according to learned A.G.A. had supported the prosecution case in material particulars as eye-witnesses which found support from medical evidence too and as such the finding of acquittal was not at all justified.;