STATE Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the appellant/State against the judgment dated 19.10.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -03 (Central), Delhi, whereby the respondent has been acquitted by the learned trial court for the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) BEFORE the rival submissions of counsel for the parties can be considered, we deem it appropriate to notice the case of the prosecution, as noticed by the learned trial court in the judgment dated 19.10.2013. Relevant portion of the trial court judgment reads as under:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that both the eye -witnesses [PW -1 and PW -2] have supported the case of the prosecution and their version unequivocally proved the guilt of the respondent in the commission of the crime. Counsel further submits that the inconsistencies are minor in nature and they do not go into the core of the issue. It has further been submitted that on the pointing out of the respondent the weapon of offence i.e. sua (ice pick) was recovered and this would be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Counsel further contends that the blood was found in the Santro car in which the respondent had fled from the spot of the incident. The FSL report shows that the blood was human blood. It is, thus, contended that besides the ocular evidence even the scientific evidence establishes the guilt of the respondent beyond any shadow of doubt. Counsel also contends that the medical evidence is also in absolute consonance with the oral and ocular evidence. The post -mortem report would show that vital injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon, which will prove a link between the injuries and the weapon of offence recovered on the pointing of the respondent herein.