TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1971 (3) TMI 132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....committed under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case was that Lalu was pairokar of Kali Charan in a criminal case filed by him against Jaggo and another person named Iqbal. On 17 July, 1965 the day fixed for hearing of the case, Sri Chand and Madan Mohan abused Lalu and threatened him for doing pairvi in that criminal case. The same evening Lalu was talking to Ramesh, Tara Chand and Munna Lal at Bhogipura crossing at Agra City in front of Sarwan's shop. All the accused suddenly came and shouted at Lalu that they would teach him a lesson. Lalu ran inside the lane between the shops of Sita Ram and Lal Singh. The accused pursued him. Lalu was overtaken. The accused assaulted Lalu even after he had fallen. A number of persons including Munna Lal, Girja Prasad, Bahadur Singh, Sarwan, Hari Babu, Tara Chand and Ramesh Chand are said to have witnessed the occurrence. After giving numerous blows the accused ran away. Munna Lal and Sarwan took Lalu in a rickshaw to a hospital. Dr. Balbir Singh examined Lalu at 10 p.m. Munna Lal wrote a report and took it to Police Station at Loha Mandi and lodged it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the statements of the eye-witnesses. Bhikari, Sarvan and Tara Chand were described by the Sessions Court to be independent witnesses who could not be said to be Inimical to the accused. 8. The Sessions Court found that the medical evidence established that Lalu received a number of incised wounds and the injuries in the opinion of the doctor were sufficient In ordinary course of nature to cause death of Lalu. The Sessions Court held that Lalu died as a result of the injuries which he received. 9. The High Court held that all the eye-witnesses were partisan witnesses. Munna Lal was found to be involved in proceedings under Section 107/117 of the Criminal Procedure Code along with Krishna Swarup Updhyaya. That case was started by a person called Gopi about two years prior to the alleged occurrence. Krishna Swarup Upadhyaya was acquitted. The others were convicted. Gopi was said to belong to the party of the accused in the present case. The High Court therefore found that Munna Lal was on inimical terms against the accused. Sarwan admitted that he had been threatened by Sri Mohan and Sarwan had filed an application against Sri Mohan. Sarwan also admitted that Sri Mohan had assau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y reason. It was emphasised on behalf of the appellant that Munna Lal who was a relation should have particular reasons to see that the real culprit was punished and therefore Munna Lal's evidence should be accepted. The Sessions Court did not give any reason as to why in spite of relationship Munna Lal's evidence was acceptable. Merely saying that the evidence was carefully scrutinised or saying that Munna Lal was a truthful person because of his admission of appearing as a witness against Sri Narain and Sri Chand, does not by it self give any reason for holding that Munna Lal is a truthful witness. Munna Lal could not deny the factum of giving evidence in that criminal case. It would be impossible to deny his association in that case. The High Court did not characterise Munna Lal as a partisan witness on the ground of relation but on the entirely different ground that Munna Lal was involved in proceedings along with Krishna Swarup Upadhyaya. That case was brought by a person called Gopi who belonged to party of the accused. Krishna Swarup Upadhyaya was acquitted. Sarwan's filing the application against Madan Mohan was not a ground for rejecting his testimony by the Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed occurrence. Ramesh was mentioned in the first information report. It is true that all the witnesses of the prosecution need not be called but it is important to notice that the witness whose evidence is essential to the "unfolding of the narrative" should be called. This salutary principle in criminal trials has been stressed by this Court in the case of Habeeb Mohammad v. The State of Hyderabad [1954]1SCR475 , for eliciting the truth. The absence of Ramesh from the prosecution evidence seriously affects the truth of the prosecution case. 16. This Court in Habeeb Mohammad's case, [1954]1SCR475 (supra) referred to the observations of Jenkins, C.J. in Ram Ranjan Roy v. Emperor AIR1915Cal545 that the purpose of a criminal trial is not to support at all costs a theory but to investigate the offence and to determine the guilt or innocence of the act-used and the duty of a public prosecutor is to represent the administration of justice so that the testimony of all the available eye-witnesses should be before the Court Lord Roche in Stephen Seneviratne v. The King AIR 1936 PC 289, referred to the observations of Jenkins, C.J. and said that the witnesses essential to the ....