STATE Vs. RAM DAYAL @ LAMBOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by the State against the judgement dated 28.02.2011 of the Ld.Addl.Sessions Judge in SC No.41/2010 whereby the Respondents/accused were acquitted of the charges of committing offences punishable under Sections 302/120B/34 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that on 30.12.2005 information was received through wireless, by police post East Uttam Nagar that a woman had been stabbed at RZB-36A, Pratap Garden. The SHO reached the spot and found that three or four police personnel from the concerned police post were there. He also saw the body of a woman lying by the side of a mat; it had a sharp cut on the neck and there were other injury marks on the body. The statement of PW-12 Master Rockin, the deceased's son, was recorded, in which he alleged that at about 9.30 or 10.00 A.M. he was playing with other children and was sitting in the gali. At that time, his father (who deposed during the trial as PW-10) and three others, to whom the accused Ram Dayal was known, went to his house and his mother (the deceased), after washing the clothes, went inside. He stated that Ram Dayal had brought liquor with him and asked his younger sister to bring some snacks and gave her Rs 3/-. PW-12 claimed that he saw Ram Dayal and his companions leaving the house; he also stated that they had bolted the house from outside and ran away from the spot. On opening the door, boy saw his mother in a pool of blood. His father i.e. PW-10 was lying unconscious in a drunken state. On the basis of this information, the police conducted investigation, seized material exhibits and proceeded to arrest the accused. They were charged with committing the offences made out against them. They denied their guilt and claimed trial. During the Trial Court's proceeding, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of thirty witnesses and various exhibits on record.

(3.) The testimonies of PW-8, PW-10 and PW-12 were pressed into service primarily by the prosecution. PW-8 was a shop keeper; his evidence was brought on record to support PW-12's statement of having seen the accused fleeing the spot with two or three people. PW-8, however, only partially supported the prosecution and vaguely mentioned about having seen three people running away. He could not identify them. There was no clear identification by PW-8 since the Trial Court described some contradictions between his previous statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the testimony in Court. Also this witness had identified the accused Ram Dayal in the police station.