1985 (7) TMI 238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ourt and the trial court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again. The accused, Keisam Kumar Singh, Bijoy Singh and Sagolsem Ibotomcha Singh were put on trial before the Sessions Judge for an offence under Section 302/34, IPC for causing murder of the deceased, Raghumani Singh. 3. The entire case hinges on the evidence of the two eyewitnesses, PW 1 (Oken Singh) and PW 2 (Manihar Singh), who were actually friends of the deceased and belonged to the same village which was situated within the jurisdiction of Moirang police station. 4. According to the prosecution, on December 14, 1970, PWs 1 and 2 accompanied by the deceased, went to Hotel Deluxe and took their meals in room No. 2 at about 4.30 p.m. Ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ccurrence. 6. It is the common case of the parties that two of the three accused were not earlier known to PWs 1 and 2, the two main eye-witnesses, who saw the assault on the deceased and recognised the assailants in the light which was coming from an electric pole. It is also not disputed that the accused were put at a T.I. parade shortly after their arrest and PWs 1 and 2 identified them both in the T.I. parade and also before the trial court. The defence was one of complete denial of the occurrence. 7. We have gone through the judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Judge and we are convinced that the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted the accused on the basis of trivial discrepancies which do not affect the main c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to show that either the Cinema Hall Manager or the witnesses (PWs 1 and 2) had any watch with them nor was there anything to show that the room in the Hotel where the said altercation took place had any wall-clock. It was, therefore, not open to the learned Sessions Judge to have presumed all these things in order to acquit the accused. 10. The reasoning of the Sessions Judge that nobody would take meals at 4.00 p.m. seems to be unacceptable. Here also, the Sessions Judge gravely erred in proceeding on the footing that the witnesses must have taken food at 12 Noon or 1.00 p.m. and, therefore, they could not have again taken food at 4.00 p.m. There is no clear evidence to prove these facts. Assuming that the conclusion of the learne....