State of Haryana Vs. Jai Parkash & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1992
Petitioner: State of Haryana
Respondent: Jai Parkash & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1992
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 14, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 306, 498-A with Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Six accused tried for offences under Section 306 read with 498-A – Four of the accused acquitted – Two convicted accused preferring appeal to High Court – Improvements found by the High Court in the testimony of two important prosecution witnesses – High Court therefore acquitting the accused – Appeal by the State – Copy of the two important prosecution witnesses not produced. Held. No perversity or erroneous approach in appreciation of evidence found. Appeal dismissed.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The State of Haryana has preferred this appeal against six accused persons who stood tried for having committed offence under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. The learned trial judge, on appreciation of evidence, acquitted four of them. The State did not carry any appeal to the High Court against the acquittal of those four persons.
2. The two convicted persons, namely, Jai Parkash and Shanti Devi preferred criminal appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana against their conviction and sentence. The learned judge re-appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the two star prosecution witnesses, namely, the father and the broth-er of the deceased have made so many improvements in their testi-mony from stage to stage that it is difficult to place reliance on their testimony, and ultimately acquitted them of the charges levelled against.
3. The State though has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court, has not even produced a copy of the evidence of the two relevant witnesses, namely, the father and the brother of the deceased for appreciation of this Court. On going through the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any perversity or erroneous approach in the matter of appreciation of evidence which requires interference of this Court. We accordingly dismiss this appeal.
1. The State of Haryana has preferred this appeal against six accused persons who stood tried for having committed offence under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. The learned trial judge, on appreciation of evidence, acquitted four of them. The State did not carry any appeal to the High Court against the acquittal of those four persons.
2. The two convicted persons, namely, Jai Parkash and Shanti Devi preferred criminal appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana against their conviction and sentence. The learned judge re-appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the two star prosecution witnesses, namely, the father and the broth-er of the deceased have made so many improvements in their testi-mony from stage to stage that it is difficult to place reliance on their testimony, and ultimately acquitted them of the charges levelled against.
3. The State though has preferred this appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the High Court, has not even produced a copy of the evidence of the two relevant witnesses, namely, the father and the brother of the deceased for appreciation of this Court. On going through the impugned judgment of the High Court, we do not find any perversity or erroneous approach in the matter of appreciation of evidence which requires interference of this Court. We accordingly dismiss this appeal.
