THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr.Justice G.T. Nanavati Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Kirpal Arvind Kumar, I.P. Singh and A.S. Pundit, Advs.
for the appellant Dharam Bir Vohra, Adv.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered NANAVATI, J. In these two appeals the State is challenging the acquittal of Chandrawati who was companyvicted by the trial companyrt for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 307 IPC but acquitted by the High Court.
The trial companyrt had companyvicted her on the basis of evidence of two eye witnesses P.W.2, Ram Lalit, aged about 11 years and P.W.3, Jagdei, aged about 7 years.
The High Court on reappreciation of their evidence found that the witnesses had made an improvement in their evidence over their initial version before the police as regards the manner in which P.W.3 Jagdei received the injury which was alleged to have been caused by Chandrawati.
She was companyvicted under Section 307 for causing injury to P.W. 3 Jagdei but as pointed out by the High Court both the witnesses were companytradicted on these points.
