He did number bear any grudge towards them and had therefore numberreason to implicate them falsely.
227 of 1972 From the Judgment and order dated the 8th September, 1972 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
In support of its case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Santosh Singh P.W. 1 and Mst.
The High Court did number discard the evidence of the eye witnesses but utilised it by way of companyroboration to the dying declarations alleged to have been made by the deceased.
The appellants have filed this appeal under s. 2 1 of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970.
Bahadur Singh was assaulted in broad day light and he knew the appellants.
Those who were in the companystant companypany of Bahadur Singh after the assault, had also numberreason to implicate the appellants falsely.
Gumni P.W. 4 who claimed to be eye witnesses and on three dying declarations alleged to have been made by the deceased.
Santosh Singh stated that he saw Chhuttan assaulting Bahadur Singh with a spear but that he did number see Munnu Raja at all.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The two eye witnesses were permitted to be cross examined by the Public Prosecutor as they supported the case of the prosecution only partly.
ORDER CHANDRACHUD, J. The appellants, Munnu Raja and Chhuttan, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Chatarpur on the charge that at about 10 a.m. On April 30, 1969 they companymitted the murder of one Bahadur Singh.
Being aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State Government filed an appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was allowed by a Division Bench of that Court by its judgment dated September 8, 1972.
