TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 697
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bout 6.00 p.m. PW-1 Kammod, PW-2 Mokam Singh and deceased Balmukund were grazing the cattle in their fields. The appellants along with their accomplices came there and attacked Balmukund and PW-2 Mokam Singh. Appellants Mishrilal and Lallu @ Lalaram were armed with axe and A-3 Kamoda @ Kamod Singh was armed with 'lathi' while A-4 Narayan Singh was armed with a 'Luhangi.' The prosecution case is that all of them caused injuries to deceased Balmukund. PW 1 Kammod later went to the Police Station at Bajranggarh and gave information about the incident. On the side of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined. PWs 1 to 4 are eye witnesses. The evidence of PW 4 Mathura Lal was not accepted by the Sessions Judge as his name was not mentioned i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined and cross-examined on 31.7.1991. It may be noted that some of the persons who were allegedly involved in this incident were minors and their case was tried by the Juvenile Court. PW 2 Mokam Singh was also examined as a witness in the case before the Juvenile court. In the Juvenile Court, he gave evidence to the effect that he was not aware of the persons who had attacked him and on hearing the voice of the assailants, he assumed that they were some Banjaras. Upon recalling, PW-2 Mokam Singh was confronted with the evidence he had given later before the Juvenile Court on the basis of which the accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC for having made an attempt on the life of this witness. In our opinion, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the effect that these four appellants came to the place of incident and caused injuries to her father Balmukund and PW 2 Mokam Singh. She also deposed that the accused persons were carrying axe, farsa, lathis and some other weapons. The medical evidence in this case shows that deceased Balmukund had sustained as many as 8 injuries. Except one injury, all others were lacerated injuries. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence to show that appellants Mishrilal and Lallu @ Lalaram caused injuries with an axe and that there is no corresponding incised injury on the head of the deceased and hence the medical evidence is in conflict with the evidence of the eyewitnesses. That plea also is not correct as the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to deceased Balmukund. PW 1 Kammod later went to the Police Station at Bajranggarh and gave information about the incident. On the side of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined. PWs 1 to 4 are eye witnesses. The evidence of PW 4 Mathura Lal was not accepted by the Sessions Judge as his name was not mentioned in the FI Statement. The Sessions Court relied on the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3. The High Court also accepted the evidence of PW 1 to PW 3. We heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellants seriously contended before us that the incident happened after the sunset and these witnesses could not have identified the assailants. It was pointed out t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e some Banjaras. After recalling PW 2 Mokam Singh the evidence he had given later before the Juvenile Court was confronted to the witnesses and based on that, the accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC for having made an attempt on the life of this witness. The procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge was not strictly in accordance with law. When once the witness was examined in-chief and crossexamined in full, and even if the witness had given any statement thereafter before any other court or forum, such witnesses shall not be recalled and examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the Court. A witness could be confronted only with previous statement made by him. At the time of examination of P....