STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. CHAKRADHAR BAHUGUNA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS were tried on the allegation that they have committed murder of the brother of the informant. In the First Information Report, it was indicated that the dead body of the brother of the informant has been found and that the dead body suggests that the cause of death was homicide. In order to establish that the respondents were involved in the crime alleged, prosecution relied upon information subsequently given by the informant to the police and, later, reiterated before the Trial Court as a prosecution witness that the respondents allegedly confessed the crime committed by them before him by coming to his house. The other piece of evidence jotted down by the prosecution and presented in the form of yet another prosecution witness was that the respondents were last seen with the deceased immediately before his death. However, the fact remains that the said information was not supplied by the person, who himself had seen the respondents along with the deceased immediately prior to the death of the deceased, but on the basis of information received by him from two other persons, who were not examined before the court below. The confession, alleged to have been made before the informant, is not such a piece of evidence, which is binding on the court, nor hearsay evidence of another prosecution witness could be taken by the court as evidence in support of the prosecution case.

(2.) IN the circumstances, the court below has not accepted the prosecution story against the respondents and has acquitted the respondents from the charge of having committed murder of the brother of the informant. For the reasons for which the respondents have been acquitted, being not interfereable in law, we refuse to interfere with the appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the same.