1 was delivered at Station house by injured Harish himself at 2.15 PM.
The incident was witnessed by Omkar PW 1 , Khiali Ram PW 2 who saw the attack from a close distance of about 20 paces and on account of whose protestations the accused persons hastened away from the scene, one of them leaving behind the knife used in the attack Paranvir PW 6 came on the spot soon thereafter and wrote the First Information Report Ex.
1 at the scene as per instructions of injured Harish who signed it.
The investigating officer, Nanak Chand Sharma, PW 7 who carne to the Station house at 2.30 PM proceeded to Mirganj Hospital and recorded Harishs statement Ex.
As numberdoctors were available at the Public Health Centre at Mirganj, injured Harish was taken to the District Hospital at Bareilly in a motor vehicle.
Harish who had also brought with him one of the knives left behind by the assailants, was deposited in the Station house under Memo Ex.
The accused Krishna Gopal was arrested at 6.30 PM on the same day.
Thereafter, Harish was taken to Mirganj Police Station which was just two furlongs away from the scene in an auto rickshaw by Omkar PW 1 and Mihilal, the father of Harish, who had also reached the spot by then.
h. The other witnesses were formal witnesses.
The accused denied the charge and pleaded number guilty.
At the trial, before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution examined and relied upon the two eye witnesses, Omkar PW 1 and Khiali Ram PW 2 .
5 were recovered, under Memo Ex.
In the appeal by the companyvicted persons, the High Court on a re assessment of the entire evidence persuaded itself to the view that having regard to the nature and severity of the injuries, Harish companyld number reasonably be expected to have been in a position to make the dying declarations attributed to him that the discrepancies in the evidence of the eye witnesses rendered them unsafe to be relied upon and that with the rejection of the dying declarations and the eye witness account, numberhing remained which would companynect the accused persons with the crime.
3 , prepared by him.
The learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the medical evidence of PW 3 accepted the prosecution case that numberwithstanding the somewhat serious injuries inflicted on him, Harish was in a position to instruct the preparation of Ex.
His Kurtha Ex.
Dr. Rajeev Aggarwal PW 3 examined Harish at about 4.40 PM and numbered the injuries on the person of Harish in the list, Ex.
Dr. Rajeev Aggarwal PW 3 spoke to the injury report Ex.
The prosecution relied, in the main, on the eye witnesses and on the Ex.
Despite treatment at the District Hospital by the Surgeon Dr. Pundani and Dr. Sharma, Harish died at 6.40 PM at the hospital.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.1983 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl.
The defence also assailed the credibility of the eye witnesses on what, according to the defence, were the intrinsic discrepancies in the version of the two eye witnesses who were characterised as chance and, otherwise interested, witnesses.
891 of 1985.
Thereafter, Harish was taken to the Public Health Centre at Mirganj accompanied by a companystable.
Prithvi Raj, Dalveer Bhandari and Ms. Rachna Joshi for the Appellant.
1 and to make the statement before the investigating officer as per Ex.
CRlMINAL APPELLATE JURISDlCTlON Criminal Appeal No.
the father of the deceased.
According to the drift of the suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses at the trial and from their statements under Section 313 Cr.
The case of the prosecution may briefly stated PG NO 394 At 2.00 PM on 31.1.1981 in the town of Mirganj in the District Bareilly, in front of the house of a certain Lalan, the two respondents Krishna Gopal and Vijai who are related to each other as uncle and nephew, set upon and attacked Harish, S o Mihilal, with knives causing serious injuries to which Harish succumbed at 6.40 PM the same day at the District Hospital, Bareilly, to which he was removed after the incident.
The State has challenged the acquittal as one arrived at as much by a basically erroneous approach to the matter as by a number consideration of material evidence on record, resulting in a serious miscarriage of justice.
R. Lalit and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Respondents.
The learned Sessions Judge had handed down a sentence of imprisonment for life, but the High Court, in reversal of that companyviction and sentence, acquitted the respondents.
The accused Vijai was arrested on 8.2.1981.
Dr. Balbir Singh PW 5 , who companyducted the post mortem examination spoke to the post mortem report Ex.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J. This appeal, by special leave, is by the State of Uttar Pradesh preferred against the Judgment dated 30.9.1983 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad setting aside the companyviction and sentence passed against the two Respondent accused in Sessions Trial No.
1320 of 1982.
A. No.
Serologists report was marked as Ex.
256 of 1981 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bareilly, for offences under Section 302 read with Section 304, IPC.
The motive for the killing was previous enmity between the accused persons and Mihilal.
4 and his blood stained Paijama Ex.
On an appraisal and assessment of the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the eye witnesses trust worthy and their version credible and acceptable.
The accused were, accordingly, companyvicted and sentenced.
