SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE impugned judgment and order dated 31 st May 2006, the appellants have been convicted for the offence of having murdered Ram Naresh Yadav on 30. 8. 2004.

(2.) IN a lengthy judgment spanning 43 pages, learned counsel for the parties concede, the learned Trial Judge has not critically discussed the evidence and has penned the decision in a most unsatisfactory manner by simply noting the testimony of various witnesses, without analyzing the same as required by law.

(3.) SHORN of unnecessary details, inasmuch as the case of the prosecution was sought to be proved through the testimony of two eye-witnesses, one of whom has turned hostile, the issue had to be decided with reference to the testimony of the other eye-witness. Needless to state, pertaining to the witness who had turned hostile, it needed to be considered whether any part of his testimony is relevant and corroborates the testimony of the other eye-witness.