State of U.P. Vs. Jamal Ahmad & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1979
Petitioner: State of U.P.
Respondent: Jamal Ahmad & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1979
Judges: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN & M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 11, 1992
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Acquittal
Acquittal by High Court – Brutal murder – Eye witnesses not reliable – Prosecution case suffering from infirmities – Acquittal up
Held:
IPC, sections 302/149.
Held –
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh on being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) rendered in Crl.A. No. 664/77 and Government Appeal No. 796/77 whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court convicting the 4 respondents herein and also dismissing the appeal preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence of death instead of sentence of imprisonment for life. Facts of the case are well set out both in the judgment of the trial Court as well as of the High Court. Hence we feel that it is not necessary for us to reiterate the same except referring to a few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal.
2. The 4 respondents who were arrayed as Accused Nos. 7,3,2 and 6 respectively before the trial Court along with 3 others namely Accused Nos. 1,4 and 5 took their trial on the allegations that on 14th March 1976 at about 3.30 p.m. they all formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly caused the death of the deceased Fakhrul Hassan @ Fakku. The third respondent (A-2) fired at the deceased with his pistol for more than three times and that the fourth respondent (A-6) decapitated the deceased after he had fallen down by means of a weapon like gandasa whilst the victim was thrust to the ground by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and other unidentified persons. To substantiate these allegations the prosecution has examined nearly 16 witnesses of whom PWs 1 and 2 are the eye witnesses. PW 8 is the father of the deceased. PW 4 is the person who claims to have seen both the deceased and Accused No. 7 moving together at the time of the occurrence at about 2.00 p.m. The rest are either formal or official witnesses.
3. The motive for the occurrence is as follows:
The deceased aged 28 years, son of PW 8 was having illicit intimacy with Smt. Naseem who is the daughter of the third respondent (Aziz Ahmad @ Lallu, A-2) and sister of the first respondent Jamal Ahmad. Naseem was married to a person (whose name is not brought in evidence) at Fathepur. Smt. Naseem left her marital home about 17 or 18 days before the occurrence and was missing. The third respondent suspected that the deceased should have been responsible for the missing. This was the proximate cause for this barbarous murder of the deceased. Quresh Ahmed Khan and his son Aziz Ahmed Khan @ Lallu, the third respondent herein went to the house of PW 8 and made a complaint about the missing of the third respondents daughter, Smt. Naseem. PW 8 told that he would make an enquiry from his son and give them a reply. On the same day, PW 8 told Quresh Ahmed Khan and Aziz Ahmed Khan that his son, the deceased had nothing to do with the missing of Smt. Naseem.
4. While it was so, on 14.3.79 at about 1.00 p.m. when the deceased and his father, PW 8 were in their home, Jamal Ahmad (respondent No.1) went to the house of the deceased and had a secret talk with him and took the deceased with him by keeping him on the carrier of the cycle (Ex. P4) belonging to PW 8 and himself riding the same. At about 2.00 p.m. both the first respondent and the deceased were seen moving together by PW 4. Both thereafter proceeded towards east on the cycle (Ex. P4) and the deceased was found sitting on the carrier of the cycle. While they reached the north-western corner of Bairahana grove of Chikkan Khan, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with 3 other unidentified persons suddenly sprung from the garden and surrounded the deceased. The third respondent fired at the deceased with his pistol. The deceased on receipt of the injuries fell down. Even thereafter the third respondent fired two more shots on the deceased. At this point of time, respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and other unidentified persons held the deceased firmly to the ground. The fourth respondent Javed Ahmad Khan decapitated the head of the deceased with a cutting instrument like a gandasa and thereafter put the head in a black colour bag and carried it away with him. According to the prosecution, the occurrence was witnessed by PWs 1 and 2 who were in the field of PW 1 harvesting the crop. They moved towards the occurrence spot but they were threatened not to come to the scene of occurrence. After the respondents and the other three unidentified accused persons left the scene, PWs 1 and 2 went near the spot and found the headless trunk lying on the spot. While they were on the spot, two other persons namely Onkar and Bachai came there. PW 1 leaving PW 2 and the other two persons near the dead body went to the house of PW 8 and informed him about this incident. Thereafter PW 8 came to the scene on his scooter, identified the headless body of his son then went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report at about 5.45 p.m. The case was registered on the report given by PW 8. PW 16 who took up the investigation found some articles from the scene of the occurrence inclusive of spent cartridges and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was laid against these four respondents and other three unidentified persons along with Quresh Ahmad Khan, Razi Ahmad Khan and Babu Khan.
5.There was also a charge of conspiracy besides the charge of murder. The trial Court accepting the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and receiving corroboration from the medical evidence convicted the four respondents under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment, the maximum being the sentence of imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 302 read with Sec. 149 IPC. However, the trial Court acquitted these respondents of the offence under Section 120-B read with Sec. 302 IPC and also Section 201 IPC.
6. On being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, these four respondents preferred their Criminal Appeal No. 664/77. The State preferred an appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for awarding the sentence of death to all the four respondents. The High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court for the various reasons given in the judgment. Those reasons are:
1. There was deep animosity between the third respondent and his son, the first respondent on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand. In such a piquant atmosphere, the first respondent Jamal Ahmad Khan could not have gone to the house of PW 8 on the date of occurrence and taken the deceased with him to the place of occurrence.
2. The lodging of the first information report at 5.45 p.m. cannot be accepted because it was quite impossible for PW 8 to lodge the report by 5.45 p.m. at the police station which is at the distance of 5 miles from the scene of occurrence.
3.The report contains several interpolations indicating that the allegations should have been corrected then and there due to some deliberation and the report could not have been actually lodged promptly and, therefore, the report is not a reliable document.
4. The time noted in the record has been altered.
5. The investigating officer though met PW 8 for more than three occasions on the same day, he did not consider it desirable or necessary to record the statement of PW 8.
6. The statement of the so-called eye witnesses PWs 1 and 2 were recorded only on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. despite the fact that the investigating officer came to the village even on the night of the occurrence itself.
7. After analysing the entire evidence, the High Court has summarised it as follows:
1. The lodging of the FIR at 5.45 p.m. is extremely doubtful.
2. Fairness of the investigation is not beyond doubt.
3. Reliance cannot be placed on the depositions of PWs 1 and 2.
4. The evidence that PW 4 met PW 8 does not inspire confidence.
8. On the basis of above findings of fact, the High Court has concluded as follows:
” On these findings, it is not possible to convict a person so as to deprive him either of his life and liberty. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants have to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.”
9. Hence this appeal.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ State after taking us through the recorded evidence of the witnesses as well as the judgments of both the Courts below very vigorously contended that the High Court was not at all justified in reversing the well considered and well reasoned judgment of the trial Court which is based on the direct testimony of PWs 1 and 2. According to him, the occurrence had taken place in the broad day light and, therefore, there could not have been any mistaken identity especially when PWs 1 and 2 belonged to the same village. He further states that the evidence of PW 4 deposing that he saw the deceased and the first respondent moving together just before the occurrence on a cycle and proceeded towards east is reliable and trustworthy. Lastly, he states that the medical evidence fully corroborates the testimony of PWs 1 and 2.
11. Now let us scrutinise the submission made by the learned counsel and see whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrants an interference with the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court. As pointed out above, 7 persons participated in the occurrence namely the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and three other unidentified persons. The other three unidentified persons could not be traced. Only the four respondents were the prima accused and three other persons namely accused Nos. 1,4 and 5 stood for a charge of conspiracy.
12. It is very surprising to note that almost all the family members have been brought into this case either for the main act of murder or for the conspiracy. The first accused Quresh Ahmed Khan aged about 82 years is none other than the father of the accused Nos. 2 to 5. The six accused (fourth respondent) Javed Ahmad Khan is the son of respondent No. 3 who is the father of Smt. Naseem and the first respondent Jamal Ahmad Khan. Thus the father, his four sons and two grandsons are all implicated in one way or the other in this case which fact indicates the conduct of prosecution in grouping almost all the members of the family and bringing as accused.
13. There cannot be any doubt that this murder has been executed by the culprits in a very cruel and brutal manner. But the question for consideration is whether the prosecution has satisfactorily established the charges levelled against the four respondents for the offence of murder as well as for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149 and 201 IPC. The time of occurrence, the place of occurrence, the date of occurrence, the relationship of the parties are all not in dispute; Of the two eye witnesses, PW 1 has admitted that he was an accused in a dacoity case registered in Kunda Police Station. Both these PWs 1 and 2 were standing at a distance of 30 feet. Immediately after the occurrence PW 1 went to the house of PW 8 and reported the matter leaving PW 2 and two others namely Onkar and Bachai at the scene place. Even though PW 1 alone is stated to have left the scene, he has deposed that he and PW 2 went to the house of PW 8 and reported the incident to PW 8. That evidence reads as follows:
” That Mirchu, Mohan leaving the dead body, Onkar and Bachai, went to inform Munna Miyan (PW 8) the father of Fakrul Hassan @ Fakku.”
14. PW 2 does not corroborate this piece of evidence and on the other hand he contradicts. Both the witnesses are emphatic to have witnessed the fourth respondent namely Javed Ahmad Khan (A 6) decapitating the head of the deceased with a cutting instrument like gandasa and thereafter putting the head in a black colour bag and carrying it away with him. This important fact, vital part of the occurrence, is not mentioned in the FIR or in their statements given before PW 16 during investigation. In fact PW 16 in his evidence has admitted that PW 1 during the investigation did not inform him that the fourth respondent decapitated the head by cutting it with gandasa and carried it with him after putting the head in a black colour bag and that during the severing of the head, the rest of the accused namely respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and the other unidentified persons thrust the wounded victim to the ground and that the respondents threatened PWs 1 and 2 not to come near the scene. PW 16 further states that PW 2 also did not tell him of the severing of the head of the deceased by the fourth respondent. It may be pertinent here to note that even though PW 2 went to the house of PW 8 and informed him about the occurrence, PW 8 came to the scene of the occurrence before getting the FIR written and met PW 2 at the scene. This vital omission in the FIR creates an impression in our mind that these witnesses PWs 1 and 2 could never have been the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Even though the Investigating Officer PW 16 came to the scene of occurrence at 6.40 p.m. on the same day and left the place in night, he never examined either PW 8 or PWs 1 and 2. Admittedly, these two witnesses were examined on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. PWs 1 and 2 who were available in the village did not meet the Investigating Officer before 10.00 a.m. on the occurrence day. There are certain infirmities in this case which compel us not to rely upon the testimony of these two witnesses. According to both these witnesses as soon as the deceased came sitting on the carrier of the cycle driven by the first respondent, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the three other unidentified persons surrounded him. While he was being surrounded, the third respondent fired a shot at the deceased. After the deceased fell down the third respondent fired two more shots on the chest of the deceased. The deceased had received almost all the gun-shot injuries on his chest and on his body. According to these two witnesses, the rest of the accused persons thrust him to the ground so that he could not escape and thereby facilitated the fourth respondent to severe the head of the deceased with gandasa. We find from the post mortem report that there were three wounds on the left side of the chest of the deceased. There is no explanation from the prosecution as to how these injuries were caused and when and by whom they were caused. PWs 1 and 2 do not utter any word about the infliction of these three injuries on the left side of the chest of the deceased. Hence from the above discussion, we feel that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not call for any interference. The evidence of PW 4 cannot be accepted and his evidence is artificial.
15. For all the aforementioned reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution case suffers from multiple infirmities compelling the Court not to accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The judgment of the High Court cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity. On the other hand, the High Court has arrived at the correct conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against all these respondents with which conclusion we are in total agreement.
16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
1. The State of Uttar Pradesh on being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) rendered in Crl.A. No. 664/77 and Government Appeal No. 796/77 whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court convicting the 4 respondents herein and also dismissing the appeal preferred by the State under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence of death instead of sentence of imprisonment for life. Facts of the case are well set out both in the judgment of the trial Court as well as of the High Court. Hence we feel that it is not necessary for us to reiterate the same except referring to a few facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal.
2. The 4 respondents who were arrayed as Accused Nos. 7,3,2 and 6 respectively before the trial Court along with 3 others namely Accused Nos. 1,4 and 5 took their trial on the allegations that on 14th March 1976 at about 3.30 p.m. they all formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly caused the death of the deceased Fakhrul Hassan @ Fakku. The third respondent (A-2) fired at the deceased with his pistol for more than three times and that the fourth respondent (A-6) decapitated the deceased after he had fallen down by means of a weapon like gandasa whilst the victim was thrust to the ground by respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and other unidentified persons. To substantiate these allegations the prosecution has examined nearly 16 witnesses of whom PWs 1 and 2 are the eye witnesses. PW 8 is the father of the deceased. PW 4 is the person who claims to have seen both the deceased and Accused No. 7 moving together at the time of the occurrence at about 2.00 p.m. The rest are either formal or official witnesses.
3. The motive for the occurrence is as follows:
The deceased aged 28 years, son of PW 8 was having illicit intimacy with Smt. Naseem who is the daughter of the third respondent (Aziz Ahmad @ Lallu, A-2) and sister of the first respondent Jamal Ahmad. Naseem was married to a person (whose name is not brought in evidence) at Fathepur. Smt. Naseem left her marital home about 17 or 18 days before the occurrence and was missing. The third respondent suspected that the deceased should have been responsible for the missing. This was the proximate cause for this barbarous murder of the deceased. Quresh Ahmed Khan and his son Aziz Ahmed Khan @ Lallu, the third respondent herein went to the house of PW 8 and made a complaint about the missing of the third respondents daughter, Smt. Naseem. PW 8 told that he would make an enquiry from his son and give them a reply. On the same day, PW 8 told Quresh Ahmed Khan and Aziz Ahmed Khan that his son, the deceased had nothing to do with the missing of Smt. Naseem.
4. While it was so, on 14.3.79 at about 1.00 p.m. when the deceased and his father, PW 8 were in their home, Jamal Ahmad (respondent No.1) went to the house of the deceased and had a secret talk with him and took the deceased with him by keeping him on the carrier of the cycle (Ex. P4) belonging to PW 8 and himself riding the same. At about 2.00 p.m. both the first respondent and the deceased were seen moving together by PW 4. Both thereafter proceeded towards east on the cycle (Ex. P4) and the deceased was found sitting on the carrier of the cycle. While they reached the north-western corner of Bairahana grove of Chikkan Khan, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with 3 other unidentified persons suddenly sprung from the garden and surrounded the deceased. The third respondent fired at the deceased with his pistol. The deceased on receipt of the injuries fell down. Even thereafter the third respondent fired two more shots on the deceased. At this point of time, respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and other unidentified persons held the deceased firmly to the ground. The fourth respondent Javed Ahmad Khan decapitated the head of the deceased with a cutting instrument like a gandasa and thereafter put the head in a black colour bag and carried it away with him. According to the prosecution, the occurrence was witnessed by PWs 1 and 2 who were in the field of PW 1 harvesting the crop. They moved towards the occurrence spot but they were threatened not to come to the scene of occurrence. After the respondents and the other three unidentified accused persons left the scene, PWs 1 and 2 went near the spot and found the headless trunk lying on the spot. While they were on the spot, two other persons namely Onkar and Bachai came there. PW 1 leaving PW 2 and the other two persons near the dead body went to the house of PW 8 and informed him about this incident. Thereafter PW 8 came to the scene on his scooter, identified the headless body of his son then went to the police station and lodged the First Information Report at about 5.45 p.m. The case was registered on the report given by PW 8. PW 16 who took up the investigation found some articles from the scene of the occurrence inclusive of spent cartridges and sent the dead body for postmortem examination. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was laid against these four respondents and other three unidentified persons along with Quresh Ahmad Khan, Razi Ahmad Khan and Babu Khan.
5.There was also a charge of conspiracy besides the charge of murder. The trial Court accepting the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and receiving corroboration from the medical evidence convicted the four respondents under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment, the maximum being the sentence of imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 302 read with Sec. 149 IPC. However, the trial Court acquitted these respondents of the offence under Section 120-B read with Sec. 302 IPC and also Section 201 IPC.
6. On being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, these four respondents preferred their Criminal Appeal No. 664/77. The State preferred an appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for awarding the sentence of death to all the four respondents. The High Court reversed the judgment of the Trial Court for the various reasons given in the judgment. Those reasons are:
1. There was deep animosity between the third respondent and his son, the first respondent on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand. In such a piquant atmosphere, the first respondent Jamal Ahmad Khan could not have gone to the house of PW 8 on the date of occurrence and taken the deceased with him to the place of occurrence.
2. The lodging of the first information report at 5.45 p.m. cannot be accepted because it was quite impossible for PW 8 to lodge the report by 5.45 p.m. at the police station which is at the distance of 5 miles from the scene of occurrence.
3.The report contains several interpolations indicating that the allegations should have been corrected then and there due to some deliberation and the report could not have been actually lodged promptly and, therefore, the report is not a reliable document.
4. The time noted in the record has been altered.
5. The investigating officer though met PW 8 for more than three occasions on the same day, he did not consider it desirable or necessary to record the statement of PW 8.
6. The statement of the so-called eye witnesses PWs 1 and 2 were recorded only on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. despite the fact that the investigating officer came to the village even on the night of the occurrence itself.
7. After analysing the entire evidence, the High Court has summarised it as follows:
1. The lodging of the FIR at 5.45 p.m. is extremely doubtful.
2. Fairness of the investigation is not beyond doubt.
3. Reliance cannot be placed on the depositions of PWs 1 and 2.
4. The evidence that PW 4 met PW 8 does not inspire confidence.
8. On the basis of above findings of fact, the High Court has concluded as follows:
” On these findings, it is not possible to convict a person so as to deprive him either of his life and liberty. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the appellants have to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.”
9. Hence this appeal.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ State after taking us through the recorded evidence of the witnesses as well as the judgments of both the Courts below very vigorously contended that the High Court was not at all justified in reversing the well considered and well reasoned judgment of the trial Court which is based on the direct testimony of PWs 1 and 2. According to him, the occurrence had taken place in the broad day light and, therefore, there could not have been any mistaken identity especially when PWs 1 and 2 belonged to the same village. He further states that the evidence of PW 4 deposing that he saw the deceased and the first respondent moving together just before the occurrence on a cycle and proceeded towards east is reliable and trustworthy. Lastly, he states that the medical evidence fully corroborates the testimony of PWs 1 and 2.
11. Now let us scrutinise the submission made by the learned counsel and see whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrants an interference with the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court. As pointed out above, 7 persons participated in the occurrence namely the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and three other unidentified persons. The other three unidentified persons could not be traced. Only the four respondents were the prima accused and three other persons namely accused Nos. 1,4 and 5 stood for a charge of conspiracy.
12. It is very surprising to note that almost all the family members have been brought into this case either for the main act of murder or for the conspiracy. The first accused Quresh Ahmed Khan aged about 82 years is none other than the father of the accused Nos. 2 to 5. The six accused (fourth respondent) Javed Ahmad Khan is the son of respondent No. 3 who is the father of Smt. Naseem and the first respondent Jamal Ahmad Khan. Thus the father, his four sons and two grandsons are all implicated in one way or the other in this case which fact indicates the conduct of prosecution in grouping almost all the members of the family and bringing as accused.
13. There cannot be any doubt that this murder has been executed by the culprits in a very cruel and brutal manner. But the question for consideration is whether the prosecution has satisfactorily established the charges levelled against the four respondents for the offence of murder as well as for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149 and 201 IPC. The time of occurrence, the place of occurrence, the date of occurrence, the relationship of the parties are all not in dispute; Of the two eye witnesses, PW 1 has admitted that he was an accused in a dacoity case registered in Kunda Police Station. Both these PWs 1 and 2 were standing at a distance of 30 feet. Immediately after the occurrence PW 1 went to the house of PW 8 and reported the matter leaving PW 2 and two others namely Onkar and Bachai at the scene place. Even though PW 1 alone is stated to have left the scene, he has deposed that he and PW 2 went to the house of PW 8 and reported the incident to PW 8. That evidence reads as follows:
” That Mirchu, Mohan leaving the dead body, Onkar and Bachai, went to inform Munna Miyan (PW 8) the father of Fakrul Hassan @ Fakku.”
14. PW 2 does not corroborate this piece of evidence and on the other hand he contradicts. Both the witnesses are emphatic to have witnessed the fourth respondent namely Javed Ahmad Khan (A 6) decapitating the head of the deceased with a cutting instrument like gandasa and thereafter putting the head in a black colour bag and carrying it away with him. This important fact, vital part of the occurrence, is not mentioned in the FIR or in their statements given before PW 16 during investigation. In fact PW 16 in his evidence has admitted that PW 1 during the investigation did not inform him that the fourth respondent decapitated the head by cutting it with gandasa and carried it with him after putting the head in a black colour bag and that during the severing of the head, the rest of the accused namely respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and the other unidentified persons thrust the wounded victim to the ground and that the respondents threatened PWs 1 and 2 not to come near the scene. PW 16 further states that PW 2 also did not tell him of the severing of the head of the deceased by the fourth respondent. It may be pertinent here to note that even though PW 2 went to the house of PW 8 and informed him about the occurrence, PW 8 came to the scene of the occurrence before getting the FIR written and met PW 2 at the scene. This vital omission in the FIR creates an impression in our mind that these witnesses PWs 1 and 2 could never have been the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Even though the Investigating Officer PW 16 came to the scene of occurrence at 6.40 p.m. on the same day and left the place in night, he never examined either PW 8 or PWs 1 and 2. Admittedly, these two witnesses were examined on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. PWs 1 and 2 who were available in the village did not meet the Investigating Officer before 10.00 a.m. on the occurrence day. There are certain infirmities in this case which compel us not to rely upon the testimony of these two witnesses. According to both these witnesses as soon as the deceased came sitting on the carrier of the cycle driven by the first respondent, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the three other unidentified persons surrounded him. While he was being surrounded, the third respondent fired a shot at the deceased. After the deceased fell down the third respondent fired two more shots on the chest of the deceased. The deceased had received almost all the gun-shot injuries on his chest and on his body. According to these two witnesses, the rest of the accused persons thrust him to the ground so that he could not escape and thereby facilitated the fourth respondent to severe the head of the deceased with gandasa. We find from the post mortem report that there were three wounds on the left side of the chest of the deceased. There is no explanation from the prosecution as to how these injuries were caused and when and by whom they were caused. PWs 1 and 2 do not utter any word about the infliction of these three injuries on the left side of the chest of the deceased. Hence from the above discussion, we feel that the conclusion arrived at by the High Court does not call for any interference. The evidence of PW 4 cannot be accepted and his evidence is artificial.
15. For all the aforementioned reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution case suffers from multiple infirmities compelling the Court not to accept the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The judgment of the High Court cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity. On the other hand, the High Court has arrived at the correct conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges levelled against all these respondents with which conclusion we are in total agreement.
16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
