1980 INSC 0027
                                                         Satbir

                                                           Vs

                                               State of Uttar Pradesh

                                         Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1980

                                    (R. S. Sarkaria, O. Chinnappa Reddy JJ)

                                                      21.01.1980

                                                     JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. After hearing both sides we are of opinion that the appellant's conviction cannot be sustained.
There are several circumstances which throw a doubt with regard to the appellant being the author
of the gunshot injury received by the injured, Sansar Singh. Firstly, the first information report was
lodged after a delay of three days, although it is admitted, that the injured person was conscious
throughout even after the receipt of the injury. Secondly, the gunshot injury was on the back of the
victim and in his deposition he did not say that immediately after the receipt of the injury he had
turned back and seen his assailant. Of course, the courts below have imagined this explanation,
which the injured himself had not chosen to to put forth. The third circumstance which enhances the
suspicion about the identity of the assailant, is that the victim's statement was recorded by the police
under the Code of Criminal Procedure 17 days after the occurrence, and five days after his discharge
from the hospital. No explanation of these delays is coming forth. The fourth circumstance is that an
attempt was made by the prosecution to rope in the other two brothers of the appellant, also who
have been acquitted by the High Court. Fifthly, the conviction rests mainly on the uncorroborated
testimony of the injured. His father (PW 1) who had lodged the report came after the incident and
was not an eyewitness of the incident. PWs 3 and 4 who were cited as eyewitnesses in the FIR, did
not support the prosecution case at the trial. Sixthly, there was past enmity between PW 1 and his
son (PW 2) on one side, and the appellant and his brothers on the other. The occurrence took place
after dusk at about 7.30 p.m.

3. In view of the circumstances mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the charge had not been
brought home to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the
conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted. His bail bond is discharged.

</html