9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (4) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1961 of an offence under s. 302 read with s. 34, Indian Penal Code. He sentenced each of the three to death. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Patna, and sentences of death passed against them were confirmed by it. They have come up before this Court by special leave. 2. The prosecution story is briefly as follows :- On March 17, 1959 at about 8.00 p.m. the chaukidars of the village Fateha had assembled, as usual, in the 'crime center' of the village. Their names are - Anandi Paswan, (deceased), Misri Paswan (P.W. 2), Baleshwar Paswan (P.W. 3) and Narain Paswan. Anandi and Misri Paswan were lying on a chouki. Anandi Paswan had a 'bhala' and a 'muretha' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e east of the house of Rampratap Tanti (P.W. 5) the deceased called for Rampratap's help, and freeing himself from the clutches of his captors started running way westward. Upon this Ramchandra Chaudhary let go the hand of Misri Paswan and fired at the deceased. Misri Paswan then ran into the house of Peare Sao and took shelter there. While entering that house, he heard a second gun shot. His presence in the house was detected by Mst. Ajo (P.W. 8), the wife of Peare Sao who forced him to leave the house. Thereafter he came out into the lane and concealed himself behind the door. After the moon had set and it became dark, he went to the house of Fakir Paswan (P.W. 4), which is to the east of the house of Peare Sao, and narrated the occur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... third appellant, he stated that he was unknown. Ramchandra and Jogendra have been identified not only by Misri Paswan, but also by five other witnesses, Narain Paswan, Rampratap Tanti, Srilal Chaudhary, Nathuni Chaudhary and Ramchander Jha. All these five persons had an opportunity to see the appellants because, it may be recalled, some of them were in the 'dalan' and some in the adjacent room when the appellants came near there and one of them cried out Darogaji . Their evidence has been accepted as true and adequate no only by the learned Sessions Judge who had an opportunity to see and hear the witnesses depose but also by the High Court. Their evidence cannot be reappraised in their appeals by special leave. 7. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion parade by one witness only and that the other persons did not turn up for identification and, therefore, it is not legally permissible to base the identification by only one person. It is sufficient to say that even the evidence of a single witness can sustain the conviction of an accused person if the court which saw and heard him depose regards him as a witness of truth. However, in this case, Nepali Master was identified not by one witness only but by two witnesses (P.W. 7) Srilal Chaudhary and (P.W. 9) Dukhi Mahto. It was said that Srilal is an old man of 75 and has a weak eyesight and therefore his evidence should be kept out of account. His evidence has been believed by the learned Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s hit by s. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code because it was received by the Sub-Inspector during the course of the investigation. Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code only bars proof of Dagduas made to an investigating officer during the course of investigation. Section 162 does not say that every statement made during the period of investigation is barred from being proved in evidence. For a statement to come within the purview of s. 162, it must not merely be made during the period of investigation but also in the course of investigation. The two things, that is, the period of investigation and course of investigation are not synonymous. Section 162 is aimed at Dagduas recorded by a police officer while investigating into an o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
