HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 2166 of 1987 Court No. - 44 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE TEJ PRATAP TIWARI, J. 1. Heard learned A.G.A. for the appellants-State and perused the record. 2. This is a very old appeal. 3. By the order dated 26.05.1987, passed by Shri B.B. Agarwal, learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S.T. No.148 of 1986, State Vs. Balley, Lyaqat and Mahboob, where the learned court below has acquitted the accused persons for offence under Section 307/34 I.P.C. registered at Police Station-Kotwali City, District Bijnor. 4. Upon leave to appeal sought by the appellant-State Government, vide order dated 04.02.1992 against all accused persons, it was denied for the accused Lyaqat and Mahboob. The appeal was admitted only against the accused, Balley. 5. The appeal has remained pending for 42 years. On the date of his statement being recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Balley was about 45 years of age. Today, he would be 87 years of age, hopefully alive. 6. Against the FIR lodged on 03.05.1985 at 1.15 p.m. at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bijnor, the prosecution story emerged that at 11.00 a.m. on that day the brother-in-law of Balley, hit the deceased with a spade/ 'fawda'. The first informant/injured was carried to the hospital by his servant-Om Prakash. That FIR is Ex.Ka.3 at the trial and the Injury Report dated 03.05.1985 is Ex.Ka.5 prepared by Dr. M.M. Khan (P.W.-4). In that, the following injuries were noted: Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : A.G.A. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Umesh Shankar State of U.P. .....Appellant(s) Balley And Others .....Respondent(s) "1. Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm bone deep over 1 cm left forehead, margins clean ent 2 cm above from 1 cm left eye brow, slight fresh bleeding present, kept u.o. advised X-ray of skull, 2. Traumatic swelling 6 cm x 4 cm over the left upper arm on lat. aspect, 3. Complain of pain over the rt. upper arm." 7. On completion of investigation, following charge was framed on 15.10.1986: "That you on 3.5.1985 at about 11 A.M. at the field of the complainant Krishna Kumar Khanna in Village Gaonri Bazurg, Pargana Daranagar Ganj, Bijnor in furtherance of common intention of all, did an act, to wit, co-accused Balley gave a spade blow on the head of the complainant with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act he had caused the death of the complainant he would have been guilty of murder and you all thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC and within the cognizance of the court of Sessions." 8. At the trial, besides the fact witness Munnu examined as P.W.-2. Dr. M.M. Khan was examined as P.W.-4 and, in his opinion, the nature of the injuries was such that they could not have caused death. During his cross- examination, he also proved, the injuries may have been caused by a sudden fall on a sharp object, such as a ‘Khurpi’. 9. The learned court below appreciated the evidence and, thereafter, observed that the injured witness could not have known how the injury was caused or suffered. The court noted, only a single blow was suffered by the injured. Munnu (P.W.-2) was not considered to be a wholly reliable witness, as his presence was not fully established in the context of the single injury disclosed by the injured. Then, referring to the statement of the doctor, as noted above, a benefit of the doubt was found existing against the accused persons. Thus, the learned court below has acquitted the accused persons. 10. Besides the above, the prosecution story was not consistent and there was unexplained delay of three days in the statement of injured being recorded. 11. Having heard the learned A.G.A. and having perused the record, this is not a case where the view taken by the learned lower court may be described as against the evidence on record or perverse in law. In fact, a possible view was taken. Keeping in mind the contradictions, doubts and unexplained GOVA No. 2166 of 1987 2 delay, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the occurrence took place more than 40 years ago. No useful purpose may be served now, in making any other or further inquiry to explore the possibility of reaching a different conclusion as to the sole accused Balley, would be close to 90 years of age. 12. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal that warrants any consideration, as such, the present Government Appeal is dismissed. September 18, 2025 Anurag/- GOVA No. 2166 of 1987 3 (Tej Pratap Tiwari,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad