JAIPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals, which have been heard together, stem from an FIR lodged by Riaz Masih (P. W. 8/11/1991 at Mani Majra Police Station for the murder of Chhinda in an incident that took place earlier on that day in Bapu Dham Colony. Pursuant to the charge sheet submitted by the police in that case three separate trials were held. In one of them Jai Sham, Durga Das and Pawan Kumar figured as accused, in another Jai Pal and Padam, who were juveniles, were tried and the. third related to the trial of Jai Sham for the offence under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act for being in unauthorised possession of knife, with which the murder was committed. The trials ended in acquittal of all the accused and aggrieved thereby the State preferred appeals before the High court. In allowing the appeals by a common judgment the High court convicted Jai Sham under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and S. 25/27 of the Arms Act and sentenced if to suffer imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively, with a direction that 'the sentences shall run concurrently. Accused Durga Das and Pawan Kumar were convicted under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The High court convicted the two juveniles also and directed their detention in a Special Home for a period of seven years, in accordance with the provisions of Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Aggrieved by the convictions and sentences recorded against him. Jai Sham has-filed two of these appeals while the other appeal has been filed by the two juveniles challenging their conviction and detention in Special Home. The other two convicts, namely Durga Dass and Pawan Kumar, however have not filed any appeal.

(2.) Xx xx xx

(3.) To prove its case the prosecution examined a number of witnesses of whom P. Ws. 8 and 9 figured as eye witnesses. On a detailed discussion of their evidence the trial court found the same unacceptable; and the reasons canvassed by it for such conclusions are, that the evidence as to with whom and where the First Information Report was lodged was highly discrepant, that though P. Ws. 8 and 9 admitted that the father's names of the accused and their addresses I were not known to them from before those particulars find place in the FIR and no explanation was forthcoming from the prosecution about the same, and that the evidence of the two eye witnesses as also that of the two Investigating Officers was contradictory on material particulars. In upsetting the findings of the trial court the High court held that the evidence of two eye witnesses was reliable and can be made the basis for conviction.