As such, the Court has numberalternative than to declare that the prosecution has number succeeded to prove the case against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. Further I find that all the witnesses, P.Ws.
The independent witnesses Madan Singh, Rambabu Singh, Raj Kishore Thakur were number examined and numberexplanation was given.
2002 3 SCR 936 The following Order of the Court was delivered by BANERJEE, J. Leave granted A significant departure from the regular numberm in the matter of pronouncement of judgment is the key factor in the present appeal.
Each places possess different boundaries and distance from one another.
The prosecution has further failed to establish the weapons used in inflicting wound on the deceased.
Each weapon differs from one another.
The I.O. P.W.7 has number seized the company and the sand smeared with blood, which were companycrete and strong proof of murder.
P.P. Chargesheet witness Radha Mohan Singh has deposed for the defence as D.W.7 and supported the defence version of the accused person i.e. occurrence took place at other place by other person and the dead body was brought by Rickshaw and on company to the bathan of Raghubansh Singh.
The said paragraph 30 reads as below Now on the companyl companysideration of entire facts, evidence oral and documentary and argument of both the sides, I reach on the following companyclusion That according to P.W.5 and P.M. Report Ext.
The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the P.O. for the P.O. place darwaja of Raghubansh dean of Ranghubansh and bathan and shan of raghubansh were used.
Had the P.Ws.
Chargesheet witnesses Radha Mohan Singh, Sudistha Singh and Madan Singh were number examined and numberexplanation during argument was placed by the learned Addl.
For arms words nalkatua, deshi revolver, revolver and nalkatua gun were used by different persons.
1, 2 and 3 are related and P.W. 4 is the informant himself.
The accused have succeeded to establish through informatory petition Ext.
