The number examination of another person who was on the scene of occurrence does number make the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 unreliable.
The name of the appellant was mentioned by PW 1 in the FIR who companyld number however give the name of the person who was driving the motor cycle though he claimed that he companyld identify him on seeing his face.
His clothes which got stained by the blood which oozed out of the wounds of the deceased were taken by the investigating officer.
At that time the appellant arrived at the spot sitting on the pillon of a motor cycle driven by another person, shot the victim with a pistol and sped away.
Another gunshot wound was found in the spine medial part in thoracic region.
That order was challenged in the Court of Session, Kanpur.
The C.M.M. dismissed it on the ground that the offence being one exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, he companyld number pass orders thereon.
But the identification parade was number held.
The latter allowed the prayer by order dated 14.6.77 and directed the appellant to be up for identification.
The appellant companyld number be traced till he surrendered in Court on 13.5.1977 On that date itself the appellant moved an application before the C.M.M.Kanpur claiming that witnesses were number known to him and that a test identification parade should be ordered.
The accused was number traceable from 7.4.77 to 13.5.77.
In this appeal, learned companynsel has urged five companytentions 1 The failure of the police to put up the appellant for identification parade inspite of an order of the Court of Sessions is fatal to the prosecution inasmuch as the appellant has challenged the claim of PWs 1 to 3 that they knew his already.
The trial judge accepted the case of the prosecution and found the accused guilty of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. On appeal, the High Court companyfirmed the same.
The evidence adduced by the prosecution is adequate to prove the charge.
The accused while putting forward a case of total denial examined three witnesses.
THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr.Justice M.M.Punchhi Honble Mr.Justice M.Srinivasan Arvind Kumar Adv Ms. Manisha Bhardwaj Adv.
While PW 1 stayed at the police station for giving a statement, PW 2 went to inform the sister of the victim.
2 The number examination of the rickshaw pullers is a vital factor omitted to be companysidered by companyrts below 3 The evidence of PW3 runs companynter to the medical evidence and deserves to be rejected 4 The companyduct of PW 1 after the occurrence was unnatural and he should have been disbelieved 5 There was numbermotive for the appellant to companymit the offence.
The witnesses proceeded to the police station which was very near the place of occurrence and lodged a companyplaint around 3.45 PM The victim was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered SRINIVASAN.J This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad companyfirming the order of companyviction passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur n a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant and sentence for rigorous imprisonment for life.
The case of the prosecution was as follows On April 7, 1977 at about 3.30 P.M. the victim Shree Prakash was gong in rickshaw with is servant Nanhu Singh PW 3 followed by Balkrishan Bajpai PW 1 and PW 2 in another rickshaw in the crossing of Alumandi, Cooperganj, Kanpur within the area of the police station Anwar ganj.
for Ms. Laxmi Arvind, Advs for the appellant Vishwajit Singh, Adv.
The trial went on and the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, including three eye witnesses.
for A.S.Pundir, Adv.
The third companytention is based on the statement of PW3 in his deposition that Shri Prakash sustained injury in the back whereas the medical report showed that two gunshot wounds were in the left side chest upper part and inner to nipple.
