LAW FOR ALL

In the absence of Evidence of his presence and participation in the offence - mere recovery of blood stained lathi at the instance of Accused , not held him as Guilty of offence. Even though alibi was not accepted - lack of corboration of Accused participation in the offence along with other accused as only one witness stated accused name in the re examination - even though non blood stained lathi was recovered at the instance of this accused - Still he is entitled for benifit of doubt. So far as the appellant Khemuram (A-8) is concerned, we find it difficult to endorse his conviction. Though one name ‘Hemu’ has occurred in the reexamination of PW-5 Prahlad Yadav but not specifically the name of this accused Khemuram8 . The prosecution has not taken any steps to clarify if there was any discrepancy in regard to the statement of this witness PW-5. No other eye-witness has named this accused Khemuram as one of the members of the mob that assaulted the deceased Govind Singh nor any other act of this accused has come on record which could connect him with the assembly in question and the place of incident. Though the lathi recovered at the instance of this accused (vide Ex. P/19) allegedly carried blood-stains but his conviction cannot be based on this recovery alone. For want of cogent and convincing evidence about his presence at the scene of crime and his participation in assaulting the deceased, in our view, this accused Khemuram (A-8) is entitled to the benefit of doubt and the findings in his relation cannot be sustained. As regards the appellant Lakhan (A-13), again, it is noticed that PW-5 Prahlad Yadav stated his name in the re-examination but then, no other eyewitness named him as one of the members of the mob that assaulted the deceased Govind Singh nor any other act of this accused has come on record which could connect him with the assembly in question and the place of incident. Thus, there had been want of corroboration of the statement of PW-5 by other witnesses in regard to the involvement of this accused Lakhan. The alleged weapon lathi said to have been recovered at the instance of this accused (vide Ex. P/26) is also not shown carrying blood-stains. Though this accused also led in defence evidence in the form of DW-3 Barsan who deposed that this accused was in other village Bhururenga and left his village on 15.10.1998 at about 5.00-5.30 and that the distance of the two villages was about 15 kms but then, there had been discrepancies regarding the dates and time in his testimony and no such specific plea of alibi was taken by this accused in his defence version. However, even if the defence evidence in his regard is not accepted, as noticed, a reasonable doubt still remains if this accused Lakhan was a part of the assembly in question. In the given circumstances, we are of the view that this accused Lakhan (A-13) is also entitled to benefit of doubt. However, in our view, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants Khemuram (A-8) and Lakhan (A-13), who deserve to be acquitted on benefit of doubt.