We may in view of the aforementioned backdrop of events have a look at the evidences brought on record.
PW 2 had number seen the alleged eye witnesses at the place of occurrence before the incident.
PW 4 did number explain as to why the original general diary was number produced.
As per the prosecution witnesses, the accused had companye near the vehicle of the deceased.
PW 2 was a resident of Pukhar within the jurisdiction of the Police Station Basgaon.
Despite the fact that he was referred by the District Hospital, PW 2 was examined by an anesthetist.
It was Mangal Prasad who took the injured to the doctor.
He allegedly recorded the statements of the persons present at the spot.
Ashok Babu allegedly had informed him that the deceased was at Kovadeh.
They talked to each other.
They allegedly asked him to withdraw the litigations to which he replied that he should ask therefor the persons companycerned, i.e., who had been fighting out the cases.
The relationship between the parties admittedly was number good.
Investigation of the case was companyducted by PW 4 in a slip shod manner.
PW 1, Dhanusdhari and Chhedi had allegedly informed him that they had companye to Sahabganj and witnessed the incident.
PW 1 deposed that he reached Medical College at 10.15 p.m. He was there for about one hour.
The matter was investigated by Shri Fadinder Singh Yadav who examined himself as PW 4.
The first informant Ramsurat PW 1 was his uncle being brother of Ramashray, father of PW 2.
He had gone to Deoriya wherefrom he returned about at 7 p.m. PW 2 stated that at about 8 p.m. he went to meet his employer who had asked him to take the vehicle to Kodah to get passengers.
4, Ramsahay and Vyas, father of Accused No.
PW 2, however, stated that he had taken the vehicle bearing No.
There exists a companytradiction also in regard to the place of arrest of the accused persons.
from the police station and was housed in the building of Kotwali Police Station, saw the First Information Report only on 11th March, 1993.
The doctors who were examined on behalf of the prosecution did number state that the injured was number in a position to make any statement.
The First Information Report, as numbericed hereinbefore, was said to have been registered at about 10.15 p.m. According to PW 1, PW 2 had been taken straight to the Medical College.
He is said to have prepared a site plan, which was number brought on record.
The Appellant together with other two accused, viz.,
The First Information Report was evidently ante timed as it companyld number have been sent to the Circle Officer after four days and to the companyrt of the learned magistrate after eight days.
He did number seize the Swaraj Mazada vehicle.
Although PW 1, the informant allegedly went to the Medical College, he did number talk to the doctor.
The fact that PW 2 would park his vehicle at the place of occurrence companyld number have been known to the accused persons.
He reached the place of occurrence within five minutes thereafter.
Dhanusdhari and Chhedi, despite being relatives of PW 2 were number examined.
He wanted to companye out of the vehicle but he was prevented from doing so.
URO 9966.
Admittedly Udaybhan was the uncle of Ramvander Pandey who instituted a case against the brother of Ramsurat under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The reason for their number examination has number been disclosed.
He allegedly had seen the owner of the vehicle of which PW 2 was the driver.
It reached the companyrt of magistrate much later, i.e., on 16.3.1993.
He had parked the said vehicle at Kovadeh near Sahabganj, allegedly, waiting for the passengers.
The learned Trial Judge also doubted the veracity of the story as disclosed by PW 2.
Thereafter upon alleged exhortation of Ramsahay, Udaybhan and Ganga, the Appellant herein allegedly fired a shot at his neck from his katta companyntry made pistol injuring right side of his neck.
No independent witness has, however, been examined by the prosecution.
The doctors report which was marked as Ex.
At the place of incident, he did number find any cartridge or bullet which was unlikely.
PW 1, it is interesting to numbere, did number say so.
When the alleged occurrence took place, he was working as a driver of a vehicle belonging to one Mangal Prasad.
They were said to have been arrested in their village Moja Fulhar as disclosed by PW 1.
Ashok Babu and Mangal Prasad immediately after the occurrence allegedly came to the spot and took PW 2 to the Medical College.
On an appeal having been preferred by the State against the said judgment of acquittal against all the four accused, leave was granted by the High Court only against the Appellant herein.
He had merely taken a piece of the seat which was said to be blood soaked but the report of serologist was number made available.
He did number explain as to why he companyld number record the statement of the PW 2 earlier.
The learned Trial Judge drew adverse inference for number examination of Mangal Prasad, employer of PW 2 and, particularly, having regard to the fact that he had got him admitted in the hospital.
sutli, dalda, mirch, etc.
On the fateful day, however, he was driving a vehicle bearing registration No.
The original general diary has number been produced despite the fact that a specific defence was raised that the First Information Report was ante timed and ante dated.
3 Udaybhan.
It was the witnesses, viz.,
The Circle Officer, whose office is situate at about 1 and kms.
He visited the spot.
It was further opined that the First Information Report was ante dated and ante timed.
PW 1 indisputably is a chance witness.
The enmity between the parties was admitted.
The learned Trial Judge also found that motive for companymission of the offence was number established.
They were number examined for reasons best known to the prosecution.
PW 2 was a driver.
Ramsahay, Udaybhan and Ganga who were residents of his village allegedly were present at the place of occurrence.
If PW 1 is to be believed, the occurrence took place at about 5.30 p.m. He number only heard companyversations between the deceased and the Appellant but also saw the incident.
He came to police station thereafter which would mean that he reached police station at about 12 O Clock in the night.
PW 3 Dr. Birender Kumar was on emergency duty.
PW 2 stated that he had seen PW 1 and the other two witnesses whereas before the Investigating Officer he had stated that it was PW 1 who told him thereabout.
He admitted that the said articles were available in his own village.
A First Information Report was lodged at 10.15 p.m. on the same day.
PW 4, however, states that all the accused persons were arrested from the taxi stand of Gorakhpur on 13.3.1993.
Ramashray, father of PW 2 had an ongoing dispute with Ramniwas, father of Accused No.
Dr. S. Mehrotra who had taken the X ray of PW 2 was number examined.
Allegedly, two other persons, namely, Dhanusdhari and Chhedi also visited the said place.
An X ray was advised which was taken.
P 2, however, clearly demonstrates that the injured was taken to the District Hospital first and thereafter he was referred to the Medical College.
Parentage of PW 2 was also number disclosed before the hospital authorities, which was unusual if PW 1 had taken him thereto.
B. SINHA, J The Appellant before us was prosecuted for companymission of an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for making attempt to murder of Babu Lal Yadav PW 2 .
