- (1.) KHEM Karan, J. Rajesh Kumar has been convicted under Section 307 and sen tenced to R. I. for four years and Bhagwan Din has been convicted under Section 307/34 and sentenced to four years R. I. by the HIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Unnao, vide his judgment and order, dated 3-9-1985 delivered in Session Trial No, 322 of 1984. It is against this judgment and order that the present appeal has been filed by the two appellants.
(2.) THE prosecution case was that on 8-10-1983 at about 6 p. m. while the injured Abdul Raseed was sitting at the betel shop of one Putan, in front of the State Bank, Ganga Ghat, that these two appellants, accompanied by Mahesh Kumar and Sariya alias Amrat Lal reached there and on the exhortation of Bhagwan Din, Rajesh fired country-made pistol at Abdul Raseed, as a result of which he sustained injuries on his back. THE incident of firing was allegedly witnessed by Jalil Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Hameed. After necessary investigation, police submitted a charge- sheet in the Court of Magistrate and the latter committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The accused Rajesh Kumar was charged under Section 307 and the remaining three accused were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. Theypleadednot guilty. In the support of this case, the prosecution examined Abdul Raseed as P. W 1, Abdul Hameed as P. W. 2, Dr. Jitendra Singh as P. W. 3, Basir Ahmad as P. W 4, Head Constable, Jag Dev Singh, as P. W. 5 and I. O. , Prithvi Pal Singh, as P. W. 6.
(3.) THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that involvement of Mahesh and Amrat Lal was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as there was no overt act on their part, so he acquitted both of them. He, however, concluded that the charges framed against Rajesh Kumar and Bhagwan Din were well-established from the evidence on record, so he convicted these two accused and sentenced them, as stated above. The learned counsel for the appel lants has submitted that there was no mo tive on the part of the appellants to kill or to cause hurt to Abdul Raseed. According to him, absence of motive demolishes the prosecution story and makes the evidence of Abdul Raseed and other alleged eye witnesses untrustworthy and unreliable. I am of the view that in such a case, where the prosecution claims to have direct evidence on the point of actual assault, absence of motive assumes no sig nificance. The question in such a case is whether the evidence of the victim and as well as what alleged eye-witnesses is reli able and adequate enough to establish the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. Their evidence cannot be rejected simply on the ground that the prosecution has not proved the motive.;