P. N. Goel, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the State against seven persons, who were acquitted by Shri M. M. Sharan, Additional Sessions' Judge, Meerut, by order dated 23-11-1971 for an offence of dacoity-cum-murder punishable under Section 396 PC.
(2.) BY order dated 9-8-19/2 Honourable Malik, J. admitted the appeal against Wahid only 1 and dismissed it summarily against respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 7. Briefly stalled the case of the prosecution was that a dacoity was committed on the night between 24th and 25th May, 1970 at about midnight in the house of Hira Lal, (PW 1) in village Amhara, P. S. Incholi, district Meerut. The dacoits were 13-14 (10-12 mentioned in the first information report, Ex. C. 1) in number armed Variously with gun, pistol, lathi and spear. There took place an encounter amongst the dacoits and the village people. The dacoits fired two shots. Smt. Ram Dei and Govind Ram were injured. Smt. Ram Dei died immediately and Govind Ram died in the hospital. Just after the occurrence, Herdeva, village Chowkidar, CW 1, came to the place of occurrence. Thereafter he went to the Police Station which is 4 1/2 miles away and lodged report verbally which was reduced in writing by the Head Constable Ext. C-1. In this report no name of any dacoit is given. Later on Hira Lal got a report written by Harpal Singh, Ex. Ka-3, which was handed over to the Investigating Officer at the crossing of Rajpura, Shri Kishun Lal Magan, Station Officer, PW 15, investigated the case and submitted charge sheets dt. 28-8-1970, 7-11- 1970, Ex. Ka-31 and Ka-32 against 9 persons including Induwa and Mahendra against whom this appeal has not been preferred. In this appeal at present we are mainly concerned with Wahid, resident of village Karnaval within the police station Saurpur, district Meerut. We have heard the learned Deputy Government Advocate, Shri D. N. Misra.
(3.) A perusal of the record shows that Wahid and some other dacoits came up with dhatas on. In the encounter their dhatas got removed, therefore, the prosecution witnesses could recognise them in the light of lantern The prosecution relied on the evidence of Hira Lal, Tara Chand, Harpal Singh and Atar Singh. Smt. Rajwati PW 19 was also produced in the case but she did not name Wahid. A perusal of the statement of Hardeva, Chowkidar, CW 1, clearly shows that he came at the house of Hira Lal after the occurrence. Thereafter he proceeded to police station to lodge report, it has been said above that in the report, Ex. Ka-1, lodged at the police station there is no name of any dacoit. Had Wahid and other persons been recognised, there appears no reason as to why Hardeva did not mention the name of a single dacoit in the report. 7.. Learned Deputy Government Advocate, pointed out that a country made pistol was recovered from Wahid on 2-6-1970 at 5 p. m. Worthy of notice is that this recovery was made about 8 days after the occurrence. It is not said that this pistol belonged to the dacoits or any other person of the village of occurrence. Obviously Wahid did not have a licence to hold the pistol. We are told that a separate case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against Wahid. The recovery of this pistol has not been connected by any evidence with the crime in hand. A perusal of the report, Ex. Ka-3, which was subsequently got written by Hira Lal clearly indicates that only one dacoit named Jagpal had a pistol. This report does not at all indicate that Wahid had a pistol. In the result the recovery of pistol from the possession of Wahid about 8 days after the occurrence does not benefit the prosecution. 8. No other point was urged against Wahid. We find no reliable evidence against him. Therefore, we see no force in the appeal against Wahid even. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Wahid is on bail. He need not surrender, his bail bonds are cancelled. Appeal dismissed.;