STATE Vs. SHIBBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prosecution sought to prove its case against the respondent through the testimony of Amjad (PW-1), who claimed to be an eye-witness as also through the fact that the knife Ex.P-7 which was got recovered by the accused after he was arrested and pursuant to his disclosure statement was the weapon of offence.

(2.) With respect to the knife Ex.P-7 the evidence was report of the serologist Ex.PW-11/F, as per which human blood was detected on the knife but group thereof could not be determined and opinion of the doctor who conducted the post- mortem of the deceased that the injuries could possibly be caused with the knife.

(3.) The learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused holding that the testimony of PW-1, who claimed to be an eye- witness, did not inspire confidence for three reasons. Firstly, the conduct of PW-1 at the time when the crime was committed, being found unnatural. Secondly, his not being able to correctly state what colour and what type of clothes were being worn by the deceased when he was murdered. Lastly, that as per the report of doctor who conducted the post-mortem i.e. Dr.K.K.Banerjee PW-3 two knife injuries could be caused only when the victim moved and PW-1 has not deposed that when assaulted, the victim moved.