JUDGMENT
1. The State has filed this application for leave to appeal in a case under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 436 & 323/149, IPC.
2. The police submitted a challan against 25 persons under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 & 326/149, IPC. The accused persons were tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bass, Alwar, who vide his judgment dated 13th Feb., 1986 convicted only 6 accused persons, namely, Chander, Roopchandra, Roshan, Sheonarain, Randhir and Jangli for offences under Sections 323 & 447, IPC. Sheonarain further has been convicted for offence under Section 436, IPC. He acquitted these accused persons of the charges under Sections 302, 307/149, 147 & 148 IPC. the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also acquitted the remaining 19 accused persons of all the charges levelled against them.
3. The State has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of all the 24 accused persons of the charges under Sections 332, 149, 307, 147 & 148/149, IPC. During the trial one accused Parta died.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor, while referring to the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, argued that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not been able to appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective. He argued that when the accused persons came in 2 tractors to the field of the deceased, 6 of them who have been convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, entered into the field; and Sheonarain set the hut of the deceased on fire, and that the remain accused persons remained standing outside surrounding the field as well as the hut of the deceased. He also argued that when the hut was set a fire, the deceased came out of it and when he wanted to run away, all the accused persons surrounded him and gave him beating, resulting in his death. So, his argument was that the accused had a common object, who had formed an unlawful assembly; and that, it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that in furtherance of their common object, they all inflicted blows to the deceased So, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, they have been wrongly acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The case is clearly established against the accused persons they having formed an unlawful assembly, and with the aid of Section 149, they all are liable to be convicted for offence under Section 302, added the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Dhankhar, the learned Counsel for the accused respondents argued that the whole evidence has been discussed in detail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, and that the prosecution witnesses were not found reliable by the learned trial court. He also argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons had conspired or that they had any pre-plan or premeditation for committing this offence. He further added that simply coming to the field, does not establish that all the accused persons had some common object. According to him, it was also possible that when the accused persons found that the hut was set a fire, they might have come from the village which was very near from the house of the deceased. While referring to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, it was argued that there is a difference in the statements of the witnesses about the number of persons who had come in the two tractors. According to Mr. Dhankhar, some of the witnesses have named only 8 persons; some eye and injured witnesses have named only 12 persons; and some have named 24 persons. Mr. Dhankhar also argued that it is also in the evidence that there were about 50-60 persons collected at the spot. So, while referring to all those, it was argued by Mr. Dhankhar that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. No overt act according to him has been assigned against these accused persons.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel. We have also gone through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, in his judgment, has discussed in detail the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and by cogent reasons, he has come to the conclusion that the witnesses have given contradictory statements, and that they are not reliable. He has also come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to show that the accused persons had any common object or pre-plan to commit the murder of the deceased. Even the allegation that all the accused persons had surrounded and inflicted blows to the deceased, is a very vague allegation. This is a general statement and on such general statement, a person cannot be convicted for such serious offence like murder. The reasons given by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his judgment, appeal us, and we agree with the finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. He in our considered opinion, has correctly appreciated the evidence on record, and it cannot be said that his interpretation is wrong or perverse. In a case of clear acquittal where the evidence is contradictory and where a clear case is not made out against the accused persons, it is not safe to interfere in the order of acquittal.
7. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. There is thus no force in the application for leave to appeal.
8. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal is rejected.