- (1.) THE above mentioned criminal appeal and the criminal revision are directed against the same judgment and order dated 18-7-1981 (Sessions Trial No. 144 of 1980) by which the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh acquitted all the six respondents of the charges publishable under Sections 147, 323 read with Sections 149, 325 read with Section 149 of IPC.
(2.) ON 3-7-1978 at about 1. 30 in the night one Paras Nath Singh lodged FIR with PS Sangramgarh against the respondents and one Chandra Pal Singh, alleging therein that on 2-7-1978 at about 6. 30 p. m. , the accused Mewa Lal assaulted Rudra Pratap Singh and when he accompanied by Rudra Pratap and Heera Lal was going to Police Station to lodge the report at about 7. 30 p. m. , that all the seven accused named in FIR, assaulted with lathis, Rudra Pratap, Heera Lal, Smt. Gangajali, as a result of which they sustained injuries. It was claimed that this incident was also witnessed by Raj Kumar (PW 2), Angad Singh, Salig Ram. It was also alleged by the prosecution that Prasant, wielded danda in self-defence, causing injuries to the accused, Lalta Singh and Chandra Pal Singh. The injuries of Chandra Pal Singh proved to be fatal. It appears undisputed that the accused Lalta Singh, had already lodged cross FIR against Parasnath Singh and others, as early as on 2-7-1978 at 9. 15 p. m. According to it, the accused named therein, assaulted Lalta Singh and Chandra Pal Singh, as a result of which Chandra Pal Singh received fatal injuries. It was said that Parasanath and other were aggressors. Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, Rudra Pratap Singh (PW 1), Raj Kumar (PW 2) were the eye-witnesses. The defence filed few papers.
(3.) THE order of acquittal is based amongst others, on the following grounds : (1) That the prosecution has failed to prove motive; (2) That the FIR does not contain an explanation of the injuries of accused Lalta and Chandra Pal, hence it can be said that the prosecution has suppressed a material fact and has presented a tainted or tailored version; (3) That it is not believable that the accused, who were seven in number, could have been at the receiving end so much so on their side Chandra Pal received fatal injuries; (4) That the defence version was also probable; (5) That it was doubtful, whether Smt. Gangajali received injuries during the course of same occurrence; (6) That oral evidence of PW 1 and 2 was full of material contradictions and so was not worthy of credence. We have heard Sri P. K. Singh, the learned Counsel for the State, Sri Mohd. Abid Ali, the learned Counsel for the respondents and have also perused the record received from the learned Sessions Judge. None has turned up from the side of the revisionist, Rudra Pratap Singh.;