Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2006 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (5) TMI 555 - SC - Indian LawsMurder - Challenged the reversal of acquittal and thereby convicting - gun shot injury - High Court referred to the Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence - HELD THAT:- The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, But P.W.3 had changed his statement regarding place of occurrence where Chatarvati had sustained injuries. The ante-mortem injuries found on the dead body of the Ram Gopal clearly belied the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. The High Court, however, held that P.Ws.1 and 2 were not related to the complainant. We may notice that admittedly the accused No. 6 was not carrying any weapon. He admittedly had a dispute with Veer Singh. Veer Singh accompanied the complainant to the police station. No role had been attributed to the said accused. It is not clear as to why he was implicated. He did not have any dispute with the deceased, namely. Ram Gopal and Chatarvati. The prosecution did not lead any evidence as to why he would join the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in commission of the crime. Similarly, appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were cousins. Except making a statement that they had been carrying some country made pistols and fired from their respective weapons, no evidence has been brought on record to that effect. We also fail to understand as to why the Investigating Officer, who took over the investigation from P.W.7 and who had investigated only for 8 days, had not been examined. No explanation whatsoever has been offered by the prosecution in this regard. The version of the prosecution is that the lands belonging to P.Ws.2 and 3 were half a kilometer away and they do not have any field near the field of the deceased. There was no standing crops in the field. The view of the Trial Court having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, was, therefore, a possible view and as such we need not go into the other contentions as regard the motive or time of death, vis-a-vis, the medical opinion etc. Thus, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct in arriving at the conclusion that the view of the Trial Court was wholly perverse and could not be sustained on me materials brought on record by the prosecution. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appellants are on bail. They are discharged from their bail bonds.
|