9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code, however, Manuwa was also charge-sheeted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code as well. 2. The trial court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence acquitted all the accused persons vide its judgment dated 3.10.2008. Aggrieved by the said order the State preferred G.A. No. 114 of 1982 before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. The High Court, vide its judgment dated 23.3.2007 confirmed the acquittal of the accused Bhappa but acquittal of Habib and Manuwa was set aside. Habib was found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and accused Manuwa was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examined PW 1 Hamid, the informant, PW 2 Rafique, brother of the deceased, PW 3 Kailash Chandra, eyewitness to the murder, PW 4 Radhey Shayam, head constable, PW 5 Ram Kheladi, constable, PW 6 Dr. K.K. Khanna, CMO of Mathura to prove the post-mortem report, prepared by Dr. K.K. Seth. PW 7 Brijpal Singh - Investigating Officer and PW 8 Bankey Lal, constable. On the side of the defence, accused examined Abdul as DW1 and Rajendra Prasad Pandey as DW2. 4. Sessions Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence acquitted all the accused persons and on appeal preferred by the State, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and, as already stated, convicted the accused persons and sentenced them to undergo imprisonmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocular testimony of the witnesses could not be discarded only by the reason of the absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. This legal position has been settled by this Court in its judgment in Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 3 SCC 654 and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 12 SCC 91. 7. We are of the view that the mere fact that PW 1 Hamid, PW 2 Rafique are son and brother of the deceased, that itself is not a ground to disbelieve their evidence. Both, PW 1 and PW 2 have, categorically stated that the first shot was fired by Manuwa but missed his aim and it was Habib who fired the fateful shot at the neck of the deceased and thereafter three culprits ran away from the spot. Pros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k. The doctor, who conducted the autopsy found that death had taken place about one day prior to the examination which was done at 5.30 PM on 14.1.1981. Doctor also found one gun short wound of entry trachea deep on the front of neck and there were fractures of third and fourth cervical vertebrae and laceration at the level of third and fourth cervical vertebrae. 10. We are of the view that the High Court has correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, including the evidence of PW6, the Chief Medical Officer and rightly came to the conclusion that the trial court had committed an error in discarding their evidence. This Court in State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh and Ors. (2005) 9 SCC 94, also recorded that in an appeal against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
