TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (2) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngaged in talk, the accused thrust a dagger on the back of Lala who then called Sabir Hanfi, Lala, himself a robust young man, rushed towards the accused who took to his heels with his companions. Lala fell down rushing forward a space of about forty yards and breathed his last. Sabir Hanfi and others also ran behind Lala to his aid. 2. Although thirteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution, only four of them were eye witnesses to the occurrence. They are Ram Pukar Sah (P.W. 1), Parmeshwar Prasad (P.W. 4), Lachman Prasad (PW 10) and Sabir Hanfil (PW 9). The Sessions Judge disbelieved all the eye witnesses and acquitted the accused. On the, other hand the High Court relied on the evidence of PW 9 as being corroborated by PWs 1 and 10. The High Court, therefore, set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. 3. PW. 4 who lodged the first information report without naming any accused and who did not know the accused before the occurrence could not even identify him at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o'. On hearing the hulla they came up to the back from the river and saw Lal Barhi running away towards the East and four persons were chasing him and raising a hulla 'pakro' 'pakro'. They further stated that about twenty or twenty five persons followed to catch two or three persons, we were chasing the Lala. They had come out of the water at that time, P.W. 10 stated that he could not identify the other companions of Lala because he "saw their back only and not their face". Since both the witnesses came out of the water on hearing the hulla which was raised only after the assault, it was not possible for these two witnesses to see the stabbing. Even if they recognised the persons running away, they would not be able to say who, amongst them, had stabbed the deceased. PW 10 has candidly admitted that he could not recognise the companions of the deceased as they were running ahead and he was watching from behind. If this be the position with regard to the companions of the deceased it is difficult to see how these two witnesses were able to recognise the accused who was running away. Apart from that there were twenty to twenty five others following the accused wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccurrence for various reasons". With regard to the third and fourth grounds the High Court referred to the station diary entry (Ex. 4) and the evidence of PW 12 and held as follows : ...it was by the mistake that PW 9 was arrested by a constable. PW. 12 has stated that in fact he was a prosecution witness. I do not find any valid reason for discrediting the evidence of PW 9. 6. From the evidence of PW 9 and PW 12 and in the context of the station diary entry (Ex. 4), the position emerges as follows : 7. A police officer went to the house of P.W. 9 in the evening of April 5, 1966, to bring him to the Thana. He was found by the Officer-in-charge of the Thana (PW 12) sitting at the police station at 7.30 P.M. New let us read the station diary entry (Ex. 4). Before we quote the same we should state that this exhibit has not been correctly translated at page 56 of the Paper book. We, therefore, ourselves examined the original station diary entry and we will set out the same as correctly translated as under: XVIII. Entered in Thana Daily (Section 186). 186 That this time, Shri G.S. Chaturvedi, Town Inspector, came to Thana and took with him Mohd. Sabir Hanfi alias Funna r/o Sarai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not understood why he should have said that a cons table brought him to the Thana whereas the entry (Ex. 4) shows that the Town Inspector Chaturvedi, brought him to the Thana. If, as the entry shows, he was brought by the Town Inspector Chaturvedi, and he was kept confined in the lock-up as an accused in the murder case, it is difficult to comprehend how at that very stage Ex. 4 could not be considered by PW 12 as containing a wrong recital without reference to the Town Inspector. Besides, PW 12, as he says, had taken charge of the investigation from Sub Inspector Gupteshwar Dayal (PW 13) at 11.00 A.M. on April 5, 1966, inspected the place of occurrence, unsuccessfully searched for the suspects Rajendra Prasad, Ram Bilas Sahni and Mohan Jha at their houses, examined some witnesses and then reported to the Thana at 7,30 P.M. to find P.W. 9, the principal witness, sitting there. Even then he would not record the statement of PW 9. He admitted during the course of cross-examination that when he first interrogated PW 9 at the Thana he had not recorded his statement. He did not even record his statement when he came to the Thana from his house at 11.00 P.M. that night. These are very su....