CHANDU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the High Court of Bombay after setting aside an order of acquittal recorded in favour of the appellant by the Trial Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 14-7-1984, at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased Gautam, along with PW 3 Dinesh and PW 8 Baban went to the part shop of Rajesh Jaiswal to purchase bidis. Rajesh Jaiswal is the brother of the appellant. An altercation ensued on the demand of payment for the bidis. During the quarrel the deceased Gautam is alleged to have assaulted Dinesh Jaiswal, a cousin of the appellant, by giving him a knife blow on his thigh. The appellant is alleged to have gone to his house and come back with a blade of spear and assaulted the deceased by giving him a spear-blow on his chest. The deceased later on succumbed to the injury after he was removed first to the police station and then to the hospital by his brother and sister. It is also the prosecution case that the weapon of offence -- spear blade -- was recovered at the instance of the appellant on a statement made under S.27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution, with a view to connect the appellant with the crime, examined as many as five eyewitnesses. The prosecution also relied upon evidence relating to the recovery of spear blade, the medical evidence and recovery of bloodstained clothes. The Trial Court, after a detailed discussion and critical analysis of the evidence found that the witnesses for the prosecution had given a "parrot-like version of the entire case" regarding assault on the deceased and had also "suppressed material facts of the case", besides making vital improvements in their version "in a systematic way". The Trial Court also opined that the origin of the fight, including the assault by Gautam and infliction of an injury to Dinesh Jaiswal with a knife had been suppressed by the prosecution witnesses. In the words of the Trial Court:

(3.) AFTER recording these findings amongst others, the Trial Court found that the prosecution evidence was not reliable and that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was accordingly acquitted.