Ram Katori & Anr. Vs. Laiq Singh & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1989.
(From the Judgment and order dated 18.12.1987 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. A. No. 2545 of 1977)
(From the Judgment and order dated 18.12.1987 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. A. No. 2545 of 1977)
Petitioner: Ram Katori & Anr.
Respondent: Laiq Singh & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 1989.
(From the Judgment and order dated 18.12.1987 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. A. No. 2545 of 1977)
(From the Judgment and order dated 18.12.1987 of the Allahabad High Court in Crl. A. No. 2545 of 1977)
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 25, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. J.D. Jain, Senior Advocate and Mr. B.S. Gupta, Advocate with him for the Appellants.
Mr. Kuldip Singh and Mr. R.S. Sodhi, Advocates for the Respond-ents.
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code
Section 302 – Acquittal of respondent by High Court – Held good reasons given by High Court for not believing the eye witnesses whose evidence suffers from major infirmities – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI, J.:
1. Ram Katori, widow of the deceased and his brother Rajiv Singh who was the original informant have filed this appeal against the acquittal of Laiq Singh respondent No. 1. The High Court considered the evidence of 3 eye witnesses and found that none of them was a reliable witness. The High Court has given good reasons for not placing reliance upon any of those witness-es. We have carefully gone through the evidence and we find that their evidence suffers from major infirmities as pointed out by the High Court. We are, therefore of the opinion that no inter-ference is called for by this Court.
2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
1. Ram Katori, widow of the deceased and his brother Rajiv Singh who was the original informant have filed this appeal against the acquittal of Laiq Singh respondent No. 1. The High Court considered the evidence of 3 eye witnesses and found that none of them was a reliable witness. The High Court has given good reasons for not placing reliance upon any of those witness-es. We have carefully gone through the evidence and we find that their evidence suffers from major infirmities as pointed out by the High Court. We are, therefore of the opinion that no inter-ference is called for by this Court.
2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
