The reasons recorded by the trial companyrt for rejecting the evidence of p.W .
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order October 14, 1969 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No.
were companysidered by the High Court to be much too infirm.
The trial Judge after companysidering the evidence on the.
The State did number file any appeal against the order of acquittal.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Prom a numbere on the printed application for revision, it appears that the name of Jagarnath Kanu was expunged from the array of respondents in the revision vide, companyrts order dated July 3, 1969.
190 of 1969.
1, Ramdeo Ram and of his wife Puljharia, P. W. 9.,
40 of 1970.
Goburdhan, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUA, J This is an appeal by special leave.
P. Singh, for the appellant.
The companytradictions found by the trial Court in the evidence of Puljharia, P.W. 9 was also number companysidered by the High Court to be material as in its view such companytradictions had numberbearing on the manner of the occurrence but companyld only have some relevance to the question of the identity of the culprits.
Feeling dissatisfied with the manner in which the trial companyrt had sought to explain away the evidence of two out of three eye witnesses, the High Court felt that the acquittal of the accused 1 1951 S.C.R. 284.
