Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 733 (ALL)

STATE OF U P v. ASGAR ALI

2001-07-24

D.K.TRIVEDI, M.A.KHAN

body2001
D. K. TRIVEDI, J. The above-noted criminal appeal and two revisions arise out of the judgment and order dated 10-5-1993 delivered by Sri Shailendra Saxena Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, in S. T. No. 326 of 1985 (State v. Asgar Ali Khan and others) and S. T. No. 453 of 1985 (State v. Shiva Kant Sharma) thereby acquitting the accused persons namely; Asgar Ali, Mohd. Naseem and Shiva Kant Sharma for the offence punishable under Section 302/307 I. P. C. 2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants are that deceased Zaheer Hasan Khan s/o Sri Aziz Hasan Khan r/o Mirzaganj, Qasba Malihabad, District Lucknow, had taken a Theka (contract) for realisation of Tahbazari dues of a leather market of Qusba Mahmoodnagar. On 3-3-1985 at about 10. 00 a. m. the deceased Zaheer Hasan Khan and his own younger son Firoz Hasan, P. W. 1, reached Mahmoodnagar leather market on Scooter at about 9. 00 a. m. , and when they were present in the market, an Ambassador Car arrived there, stopped on the road side of the market and accused Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, armed with 12 bore gun accused Mohd. Naseem armed with country made pistol and one Shiva Kant Sharma also known as Pandit armed with a Revolver descended from the Car and reached near Zaheer Hasan Khan. It is further said that Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Asgar Ali both fired at Zaheer Hasan Khan with their respective arms and from a distance of about 5-6 paces, as a result of which Zaheer Hasan Khan, sustained fire-arm injuries, fell down and died instantly. 3. Firoz Hasan Khan, the son of deceased Zaheer Hasan Khan, who was also present in the leather market witnessed the occurrence and in order to escape himself ran towards Abadi and all the miscreants chased Firoz Hasan Khan as well and opened fires at him as well with the intention to kill. When Firoz Hasan Khan went in the narrow lane of the abadi where Ambassador Car of the accused persons could not go, the accused returned back and went away towards Lucknow. The entire occurrence was witnessed by Zafar Hasan Khan alias Chandra Khan r/o Mirzaganj, Javed Ahmad r/o Kakori, Jagdish s/o Sri Gulab r/o Alawal Pur, District Hardoi, Vishram, P. W. 2 r/o Amaniganj (Malihabad) and many other persons, who were present in the market. The entire occurrence was witnessed by Zafar Hasan Khan alias Chandra Khan r/o Mirzaganj, Javed Ahmad r/o Kakori, Jagdish s/o Sri Gulab r/o Alawal Pur, District Hardoi, Vishram, P. W. 2 r/o Amaniganj (Malihabad) and many other persons, who were present in the market. Due to panic created in the market as a result of firing, all shop keepers and other persons ran away and left the market. It is further said that the deceased sustained fire arm injuries on his head and shoulder. Firoz Hasan Khan, the son of the deceased Zaheer Hasan Khan, out of fear went to the place of his brother-in-law and thereafter he went to his own house and then Sahzad Hasan Khan, the second son of Zaheer Hasan Khan, the real brother of Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1, lodged written report Ext. Ka-5 at the Police Station on 3-3-1985 at about 10. 00 a. m. On the basis of which a chik report Ext. Ka-7 was prepared and a case against the accused persons was registered vide G. D. entry Ext. Ka-8. The police reached the scene of occurrence. The Investigating Officer found the dead-body of Zaheer Hasan Khan, lying in a pool of blood in the market campus. The Investigating Officer thereafter prepared Panchayatnama of the dead-body of Zaheer Hasan Khan and other relevant memos. He also recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared site-plan Ext. Ka-13. The body of Zaheer Hasan Khan was sent to the District Hospital, Lucknow, for post- mortem, where post-mortem was conducted vide post-mortem report Ext. Ka-4. After completing necessary formalities and investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. 4. Out of four accused persons Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, absconded and, therefore, his case was separated. Case of three accused persons, namely; Asgar Ali Mohd. Naseem and Shiva Kant Sharma was tried by the learned lower Court and evidence against Ishtiaq Hasan Khan was recorded under Section 299 Cr. P. C. , in which accused persons denied charges against them and claimed trial. Their defence is that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to misunderstanding. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. They are Firoz Hasan P. W. 1 the son of the deceased Zaheer Hasan Khan, Vishram, P. W. 2, Sahzad Hasan Khan, P. W. 3, Dr. Their defence is that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to misunderstanding. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. They are Firoz Hasan P. W. 1 the son of the deceased Zaheer Hasan Khan, Vishram, P. W. 2, Sahzad Hasan Khan, P. W. 3, Dr. C. Shukla Medical Officer, P. W. 4, Constable Clerk Krishna Kumar Tiwari, P. W. 5, Anurudh Kumar, Record Keeper of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, P. W. 6, Head Constable Jai Prakash Singh, P. W. 7, Investigating Officer Sukhveer Singh, P. W. 8 and Munna Lal Bajpai, P. W. 9. The defence examined no witness. 6. The learned lower Court scrutinised the entire evidence on record, disbelieved the prosecution theory and acquitted accused persons. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and order, the State of U. P. filed Criminal Appeal being No. 337 of 1993, State v. Asgar Ali and others, while complainant Sahzad Hasan Khan filed two criminal revisions against the acquittal of Shiva Kant Sharma, Asgar Ali and Mohd. Naseem. Since all the three matters arise out of the same judgment and order, they are being disposed of together by this judgment. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and we have gone through the record and we find no force in this appeal and revisions. 8. Before we come to discuss the evidence and material on record, it will be proper if the law on the point is discussed. It case of Dharma v. State of M. P. , 1996 SCC (Cri.) 1192, it has been observed by Honble Supreme Court as follows: "though the Code does not make any distinction between an appeal from acquittal and an appeal from conviction so far as powers of the appellate Court are concerned, certain unwritten rules of adjudication have consistently been followed by Judges while dealing with appeals against acquittal. No doubt, the High Court has full power to review the evidence and to arrive at its own independent conclusion whether the appeal is against conviction or acquittal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the appellate Court has to bear in mind, first, that there is a general presumption in favour of the innocence of the person accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the appellate Court has to bear in mind, first, that there is a general presumption in favour of the innocence of the person accused in criminal cases and that presumption is only strengthened by the acquittal. The second is, every accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt regarding his guilt and when the trial Court acquitted him, he would retain that benefit in the appellate Court also. Thus, the appellate Court in appeals against acquittals has to proceed more cautiously and only if there is absolute assurance of the guilt of the accused, upon the evidence on record,that the order or acquittal is liable to be interfered with or disturbed. " 9. In case of Betal Singh v. State of U. P. , (1996) SCC (Cri) 571 ; 1996 (1) JIC 760 (SC), it has been observed by Honble Supreme Court as follows: "it is well settled that the High Courts power in disposing of appeals from conviction or acquittal are essentially the same. It is equally well settled that where the credibility of the evidence depends upon factors other than the demeanour of witness, the appellate Court is free to come to its own conclusions as to the credibility. But at the same time if the view taken by the trial Court in acquitting the accused is not palpably wrong there would be no occasion for reversal of the order of acquittal. Further the High Court should also consider the reasons advanced by the trial Court below altering the order of acquittal to order of conviction. Bearing in mind these principles let us now examine the reasons advanced by the learned trial Judge in according order of acquittal. " 10. In case of Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Guiarat, 1996 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 972, it was observed as follows: "before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to the question as to whether the reasons which weighed with the trial Court for recording the order of acquittal were proper or not. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. Instead thereof the High Court made an independent reappraisal of the entire evidence to arrive at the above quoted conclusions. This Court has repeatedly laid down that the mere fact that a view other than the one taken by the trial Court can be legitimately arrived at by the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence cannot constitute a valid and sufficient ground to interfere with an order of acquittal unless it comes to the conclusion that the entire approach of the trial Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal or the conclusions arrived at by it were wholly untenable. While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate Court is first required to seek in answer to the question whether the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. It the appellate Court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only re- appraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion. In keeping with the above principles we have, therefore, to first ascertain whether the findings of the trial Court are sustainable or not. " 11. From the law laid down above by Honble Supreme Court of India, it can safely be gathered that the powers of High Court in dealing with the order of acquittal passed by a Sessions Judge in a Criminal Session trial is also wide as it is in cases of conviction order. It will not be proper to observe that the High Court has no power at all to reverse the order of acquittal. However, it can be done only in such cases where appraisal of the evidence as given by the trial Court is perverse or is against the material available on record. If the trial Court has scrutinised the evidence thoroughly and has not ignored the material evidence on record, then the High Court should be hesitant in reversing the order of acquittal. It is in this background and law on the point that this Court shall proceed to examine the evidence on record. 12. If the trial Court has scrutinised the evidence thoroughly and has not ignored the material evidence on record, then the High Court should be hesitant in reversing the order of acquittal. It is in this background and law on the point that this Court shall proceed to examine the evidence on record. 12. In this case out of nine prosecution witnesses examined, two are such witnesses who have given eye-witness account of the occurrence and they are Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1, son of deceased Zaheer Hasan Khan and one Vishram, P. W. 2. The third witness Sahzad Hasan Khan, P. W. 3, is the first informant and is admittedly not an eye-witness of the occurrence. Here in the present case the date, time and place of occurrence is not disputed by the defence. The fact that Zaheer Hasan died as a result of fire- arm injuries and injuries caused by blunt weapon, is also not disputed by the defence. The defence case simply is that accused parsons facing trial in this case were not at all known to the prosecution witnesses from before and atleast two of them are such accused who were not at all known to the prosecution witnesses and this is how that accused Shiva Kant Sharma is not named in the F. I. R. with his actual name and he was subsequently put up for identification and was correctly identified by Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 only. The other two accused persons were not put up for identification. The accused persons denied their involvement in the commission of crime and also disputed the presence of Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 and Vishram, P. W. 2. It may now be seen as to whether these two witnesses were at call present at the time of occurrence. Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 has stated that there was bad blood between his father Zaheer Hasan Khan and the accused persons from before. He has stated that he had three brothers and Shahzad Hasan Khan, P. W. 3 is the elder and Rizwan Hasan Khan is the younger brother. During the life-time of his father he used to take contract of Hide and Bones from Zila Parishad. His father was having contract of leather market of Mahmood Nagar and they used to realise Tahbazari of that market on every Sunday. During the life-time of his father he used to take contract of Hide and Bones from Zila Parishad. His father was having contract of leather market of Mahmood Nagar and they used to realise Tahbazari of that market on every Sunday. There was a dispute in between his father and the accused Ishtiaq Hasan Khan about the taking of this contract from Zila Parishad and this dispute existed right from April, 1984 Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, accused always threatend his father Zaheer Hasan Khan and always asked him not to take this Theka. However, his father resisted and always had asserted that who were the highest bidder shall be entitled to have a Theka and on that count Ishtiaq Hasan Khan was very badly annoyed with his father Zaheer Hasan Khan. A compromise was, however, arrived on 11-2-1985. The said agreement was reduced into writing and from his side it was signed by his brother Sahzad Hasan Khan, while from the side of Ishtiaq Hasan, accused, Asgar Ali, co-accused had signed but subsequently Ishtiaq Hasan, accused refused to sign that compromise deed and instead had threatened his father Zaheer Hasan Khan, with dire consequences in case the contract was taken. In fact tenders were invited by Zila Parishad and since the tender of his father Zaheer Hasan Khan was of higher price, it was accepted by the authorities and Ishtiaq Hasan Khan felt very badly annoyed on account of that fact. The other accused persons had been his companions. He has further stated that on fateful day he and his father had gone to the market of Mahmoodnagar to realise Tahbazari dues. They reached in the market on Scooter and at about 9. 00 a. m. and at that very time an Ambassador Car arrived there on the road and by the side of the market. The accused persons accompanied by Ishtiaq Hasan Khan descended from that Ambassador Car. All the accused persons were armed with fire-arms. They hurriedly went near his father Zaheer Hasan Khan, Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, co-accused was armed with a gun while Asgar Ali Khan and Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, initially fired at Zaheer Hasan Khan with guns and subsequently Shiva Kant Sharma, Mohd. Naseem also fired with their respective arms. All the accused persons were armed with fire-arms. They hurriedly went near his father Zaheer Hasan Khan, Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, co-accused was armed with a gun while Asgar Ali Khan and Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, initially fired at Zaheer Hasan Khan with guns and subsequently Shiva Kant Sharma, Mohd. Naseem also fired with their respective arms. This witness has further stated that he had witnessed this occurrence from some distance and accused persons then started firing at him as well and out of fear he started his Scooter and started running away. The accused persons chased him by firing and in the Ambassador Car. Further he diverted his Scooter to narrow lanes of the Abadi where the accused persons could not drive their Ambassador Car and therefore, they went away on the road towards Lucknow side,then he went to the house of his own sister in Mahmoodnagar. He took his brother-in-law with him on his Scooter and went to his home at Mirzaganj and reported the matter to his brother Shahzad, Hasan Khan, P. W. 3 then his brother Shahzad Hasan Khan, prepared a written report Ext. Ka-4 and it was lodged at the police station. In his cross-examination this witness has clearly admitted that at the relevant time he was at a distance of about 150-200 paces from his father Zaheer Hasan Khan. Apparently this witness Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 was at a distance of about 150-200 paces from his father, Zaheer Hasan Khan when the occurrence took place and in between him and his father there was a gathering of about 100-125 persons and all were busy in the business of purchase and sale of leather. Apparently thus this witness was not at all in a position to see as to who actually opened fire at his father, Zaheer Hasan Khan. Apparently the firing took place from a very close range and according to this witness from a distance of 5-6 paces. This witness was, therefore, not at all in a position to see as to who actually fired and this is how that there had been discrepancies in his statement as well as in the original version mentioned in the F. I. R. 13. This witness was, therefore, not at all in a position to see as to who actually fired and this is how that there had been discrepancies in his statement as well as in the original version mentioned in the F. I. R. 13. Shahzad Hasan Khan P. W. 3, the real brother of Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 has stated that whatever was written in the FIR is that which was mentioned by his brother Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1. 14. Now a perusal of the FIR Ext. Ka-4 on record shows that the actual role of firing has been assigned to Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Asgar Ali. No role of firing in fact has been assigned to accused Mohd. Naseem and Shiva Kant Sharma. The only role assigned to them is that Mohd. Naseem armed with country made pistol and Shiva Kant Sharma armed with revolver were also present and were in the company of Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Asgar Ali. The subsequent development is that the accused persons were also present at the spot and fired at Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 as well as this fact has not at all been mentioned in the FIR it is simply mentioned that after firing by Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Asgar Ali, all the four accused persons ran away firing recklessly in the market and thus created panic. It is not at all mentioned that an attempt to kill Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 was also made by the accused persons. This story has also been subsequently developed that the accused persons fired at Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 as well who out of fear started his Scooter and ran away from the scene of occurrence and the accused persons chased him by firing and when Firoz Hasan Khan,went away to narrow lane of the Abadi, the miscreants gave up the chase and returned to the road towards Lucknow. This is a fact and a story which has been developed by the prosecution in order to show the presence of Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 on or near the scene of occurrence. If there was reckless firing by the accused persons at Firoz Hasan Khan as well, then there was hardly any occasion for Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 as well to escape absolutely unhurt. If there was reckless firing by the accused persons at Firoz Hasan Khan as well, then there was hardly any occasion for Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 as well to escape absolutely unhurt. Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 gave his own admission that he heard noise of firing and his attention was diverted and he saw the accused persons firing at his father. Once the attention of the witness was drawn by the noise of firing, then he could not have seen the actual firing, at his father because the firing, even according to this witness had already taken place. In the FIR itself it is not mentioned that the accused Shiva Kant Sharma Mohd. Naseem had also fired at Zaheer Hasan Khan. Thus the presence of Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 on or near the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and does not at all inspire confidence. Similarly the presence of Vishram P. W. 2 on or hear the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful. He has further stated that he was present in the market for selling the leather. He heard the noise of firing and saw Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, and Asgar Ali firing at Zaheer Hasan Khan. He has clearly stated that Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 heard noise of firing, he (Firoz Hasan Khan) ran away from the scene of occurrence and he could not see as to whether any of the accused had at all fired at Firoz Hasan Khan. This witness thus partly supports the prosecution case and says that he saw the accused persons Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and Asgar Ali firing at Zaheer Hasan Khan but in fact he did not see as to whether any accused had fired at Firoz Hasan Khan because Firoz Hasan Khan immediately after hearing the noise of the fire ran away from the scene of occurrence. At page 4 and in para 7 of his statement, this witness stated that since there was firing he ran away from the scene of occurrence. He has admitted that he did not at all go near the scene of occurrence. He has further admitted that no-body was near the body of Zaheer Hasan Khan and nobody in the crowd dared to lift the body of Zaheer Hasan Khan or to see his condition, he has also admitted that he did not know accused Mohd. He has admitted that he did not at all go near the scene of occurrence. He has further admitted that no-body was near the body of Zaheer Hasan Khan and nobody in the crowd dared to lift the body of Zaheer Hasan Khan or to see his condition, he has also admitted that he did not know accused Mohd. Naseem from before. Therefore, he also could not be named as accused. He further stated that he also did not know Shiva Kant Sharma as well. Accused Shiva Kant Sharma was also put up for identification and Vishram P. W. 2 did not identify him. In his further cross-examination this witness has further admitted that he has no receipt at all for purchase and sale of leather. He has also no licence for purchase as well of leather in the Mahmoodnagar market. In his further cross-examination, this witness has admitted that at the time of occurrence there was a crowd of about 200-250 persons in between him Zaheer Hasan Khan, deceased, at the time of occurrence there were as many as 100- 125 persons. He has further admitted that his attention was diverted towards the deceased when he heard the noise of firing. In the crowds he went towards the place of firing and he saw that Zaheer Hasan Khan was lying dead and he did not see any body there. 15. From the entire statement of this witness it can be safely gathered that either he was not present in the market or that in fact he was present but he was at a considerable distance from the place of occurrence and in the crowd he was not at all in a position to see the actual assailants. Thus no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Vishram P. W. 2. Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 is the son of the deceased and besides being a relation witness has also been annoyed with Ishtiaq Hasan Khan accused or his companions. His evidence against Shiva Kant Sharma is based on identification and since there is single identification against Shiva Kant Sharma, it may be mere matter of chance and no reliance can be placed and it cannot be the basis of conviction. His evidence against Shiva Kant Sharma is based on identification and since there is single identification against Shiva Kant Sharma, it may be mere matter of chance and no reliance can be placed and it cannot be the basis of conviction. The presence of Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 on or near he scene of occurrence becomes further doubtful on account of facts that in the FIR it is mentioned that his father Zaheer Hasan Khan did sustain injuries on his head and shoulder. When this witness, according to his own statement ran away from the scene of occurrence and did not stay for a while to see the condition of his father, how could this fact has been mentioned in the FIR that Zaheer Hasan Khan, the father did sustain injuries on his head and shoulder, particularly in this background that neither Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 nor Shahzad Hasan Khan, P. W. 3, the first informant did go near the body of their father Zaheer Hasan Khan, before lodging of the FIR. There may be enmity between the parties from before and there may be strong motive with the accused Ishtiaq Hasan Khan for the commission of the crime on account of ill will-in respect of Theka. Yet it cannot be sufficient to pass the order of conviction against the accused persons on that ground. The presence of witnesses on or near the scene of occurrence must be proved beyond doubt out of the witnesses mentioned in the FIR namely Vishram, P. W. 2, said to have been independent witness has been examined but his testimony is that of no reliable witness and it does not at all inspire confidence. 16. Javed is yet another witness, who was said to be present on the scene of occurrence but he has not been examined. Similar Zafar alias Chanda Khan and Jagdish s/o Gulab were also present at the time of occurrence but they have also not examined. Even according to the prosecution there were a number of shops in the vicinity and several houses were also there and the doors of these houses open in market. None has, however, been examined by the prosecution in order to support the fact that in fact the firing was done by the accused persons. 17. Our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the respondents towards site-plan Ext. None has, however, been examined by the prosecution in order to support the fact that in fact the firing was done by the accused persons. 17. Our attention has been drawn by the learned Counsel for the respondents towards site-plan Ext. Ka. 13 and it has been argued that no where the Investigating Officer, who reached the scene of occurrence immediately after the occurrence, it has been mentioned as to where Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 was present at the time of occurrence and what was the place where Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 had stayed his scooter and it has also no where been mentioned as to exactly at what place Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 was standing at the time when the accused persons fired at his father. It is also no where been mentioned in the site-plan Ext. Ka-13 as to from which place Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 or Vishram, P. W. 2 had seen the accused persons firing. It is also not mentioned in the site-plan Ext. Ka-13 as to how Firoz Hasan Khan ran and to which direction, when he was fired and chased by the miscreants. The silence of the Investigating Officer in the site-plan Ext. Ka-13 is not irrelevant and it is not just a chance that the Investigating Officer omitted to mention the presence of Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 and Vishram, P. W. 2. In fact the Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that no-body was found present when he reached the scene of occurrence and he simply saw the dead-body of Zaheer Hasan Khan lying in a pool of blood and in the market. 18. It was bounden duty of the prosecution to show as to exactly from which place Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 and Vishram, P. W. 2 had seen the occurrence. This fact must have been mentioned by the Investigating Officer in the site-plan Ext. Ka-13. It is not a accidental omission, while hearing criminal appeals and revisions, this Court had also directed the prosecution/state to produce case diary so that with the help of this case-diary it could be found as to whether the Investigating Officer had mentioned in the case-diary the place from where Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 and Vishram, P. W. 2 had witnessed the occurrence. Despite instructions by this Court, the prosecution failed to produce case-diary and the absence of mention of presence of Firoz Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 and Vishram P. W. 2 in the site-plan clearly show that these witnesses in fact were either not present on or near the scene of occurrence or they have not at all seen the occurrence and this is how the Investigating Officer has not mentioned in the site-plan Ext. Ka-13. 19. As a result of the above discussion on the evidence on record and circumstances of the case, we find that the approach of learned lower Court in recording the finding of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous or against the evidence on record. The learned lower Court has given benefit of doubt to the accused persons and we find no illegality or infirmity in the findings. 20. In the result the appeal and both the revisions fail and are hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .