It is, of companyrse, an admitted fact that the respondent was a stranger to PW 26.
The prosecution then alleged that Narayan Dubey tried to stop the said person, companysequent to which the said person fired three times which caused gun shot injury on Narayan Dubey.
Thereafter, the said person allegedly ran away from the place of incident.
The injured Narayan Dubey was rushed to the hospital where he succumbed to gun shot injury.
On this basis the respondent was arrested.
90 of 1986.
The report of the ballistic expert was marked as Ext.
It is the further case of the prosecution that on 22.9.1985 about 7 months after the incident in which Narayan dubey died and during the investigation of another Crime No.
The High Court also came to the companyclusion that the identification by the appellant at the test identification parade cannot also be relied upon and there was every possibility of the respondent being shown to PW 26 prior to the test identification parade.
I do number remember their looks as all were wrapped in blankets.
On 13.2.1985 at about 10 p.m. PW 26 numbericed some flashing of the light inside the unoccupied house of the MLA and apprehending that there was something wrong, he went to the house of Narayan Dubey the deceased who was living just behind the house of the MLA.
P 18 one .22 bore pistol was recovered from the house of one Chandan and same was seized as per Seizure Memo Ext.
All those who were brought were wrapped in blankets and all of them were young.
When PW 26 called out to him to stop, the said person started abusing him and threatened him to fire with a pistol carried by him and in fact fired at PW 26 with the pistol which missed PW 26.
During the companyrse of the investigation of the case involving the death of Narayan Dubey certain empty cartridges had been seized from the spot of incident and the pistol then recovered at the instance of the respondent herein was sent for ballistic examination who opined that the empty cartridges found at the place of incident companyld have been fired by the pistol recovered at the instance of the respondent.
7/85 by the police of Police Station Sarni, the respondent herein was arrested and on an alleged disclosure statement made by him as per Ext.
As per the prosecution case, the investigation companymenced on a companyplaint made by PW 26 which did number make much progress.
Brief tacts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows According to the prosecution, Arun Kumar Mehta PW 26 was a Typist working with a Member of Legislative Assembly who was residing in Quarter No.
PW 26 in the companyrse of his examination stated thus The Tehsildar called five six prisoners from inside.
A week after the respondent was arrested a test identification parade was held at Betul Jail where PW 26 allegedly identified the respondent as the person who shot Narayan Dubey on the date of incident hence, a charge sheet under Section 302, 457, 380 IPC was laid against the respondent who, as stated above, was companyvicted by the Additional Sessions Judge but on appeal was acquitted by the High Court.
Their hairs were number visible.
825 of 1988 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal pf the respondent herein and set aside the companyviction and sentence imposed on him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal under Section 302, 380 and 457 of the IPC in ST No.
I did number numberice this even, how many of them had moles on their numberes, I cannot tell how many of them were dark and how many were fair.
I cannot tell how many of them were of medium stature and how many were short statured.
The High Court during the companyrse of its judgment which is number impugned before us came to the companyclusion that the evidence of PW 26 which was the basis for companyviction of the respondent cannot be relied upon because the High Court was of the opinion that PW 26 companyld number have identified the respondent for want of sufficient light.
At the request of PW 26, the said Narayan Dubey came out of the house with a sword in his hand along with him came a little later Dubeys son PW 11 when they saw a person with medium height aged about 20 2.5 years with curly hair and having somewhat darkish companyplexion companyering himself with a white shawl companying out of the house of the MLA.
Santosh Hegde, J. State of Madhya Pradesh is in appeal before us against a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Crl.
