This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court was reversed and the appellant was companyvicted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years.
The High Court found that all the three eye witnesses were reliable and, in spite of enmity between the parties, there was numberreason to distrust the testimony of these witnesses.
On the other hand, the trial companyrt had given good and companyent reasons for disbelieving the eye witnesses, one of them being that these witnesses were number only inimical but belonged to the same group to which the companyplainant belonged and had been companytinually deposing in all cases for the companyplainant.
The trial companyrt also laid stress on the circumstance that the definite case made out by the companyplainant Giri Lal in the FIR was that he was assaulted by a spear.
Babu Lal had filed a separate special leave petition in which leave was granted which is Criminal Appeal No.
Another reason given by the trial companyrt was that, although some independent witnesses appeared on the scene, they were number at all produced by the prosecution.
Thereafter, the State filed appeal before the High Court which reversed the judgment of the trial companyrt after believing the three eye witnesses, namely, Giri Lal, Baljit and Anand Swarup.
The Trial Court accordingly acquitted the appellants.
The High Court on the question of weapon has merely companyjectured that the companyplainants may number have numbericed the exact nature of the weapon.
In the companyrse of the evidence, however, the witnesses sought to make improvement by changing their statements and stated that the companyplainant was assaulted by a lathi which had an iron rod attached to it, i.e., Phuli.
There were two accused in this case, Dharam Pal and Babu Lal.
The High Court did number accept the finding of the trial companyrt that identification was number possible because the High Court thought that the witnesses being known persons, even though they had assaulted from behind, they companyld have been identified by the companyplainants and the other witness.
On January 20, 1968 at about 7.30 p.m. when companyplainants Giri Lal and Baljit were returning from the companyrt and reached the village at 7.30 p.m. the appellants surrounded them and assaulted companyplainant Giri Lal with lathis.
FIR was lodged at the police station and after the usual investigation, a charge sheet was submitted.
The trial companyrt after companysidering the evidence on its intrinsic merits found that in view of the party faction and the night being a dark one, it was number possible for the companyplainants to identify the accused.
