PRAM; LALLU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. C. Jain, J. Both these appeals have been preferred by the appel lants against one and the same judgment and order dated 28-2-1980 passed by Hud Additional 'district and Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1979, whereby the appellant, Prcm, was convicted under Sections 302, and 307,i. P. C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, I. P. C. and ten years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307, I, P. C. while the appellant, Kallu was convicted under Section 301, I. P. C. punishable. under Section 302, I. P. C. and also under Section 307,i. P. C. and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302, I. P. C. and ten yean' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307,i. P. C. , as such we propose to dispose of these two appeals by a common judgment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 28-5-1973 at about 9. 45 p. m. near the betel shop of Hari Lal in Mohalla Fatehpur Bichwa Police Station Colonelganj, Allahabad, deceased, Munir Ahmad was present. Hari Lal and Nanhey, injured, were also present there. As per prosecution version appellants, Lallu and Prem, on the exhortation of one Bhullan threw two hand made bombs towards the injured and deceased causing injuries to all these three persons and the injuries received by Munir Ahmad were proved and he succumbed to his injuries in the hospital on 28-5-1973 caution to find out whether remaining poition of his evidence can be treated as credible. Coming to the statement of these witnesses in such type of material contradiction which goes to the root of the matter, it is very unsafe to rely on the statements of these witnesses for conviction of the appellants. Even the Investigating Officer has not cared to investigate the case properly and to find out the actual culprit and this fact has also been observed by the learned trial court in his judgment. THE examinaiion-in-chief of a witness is subject to the cross-examination and these witnesses have not been able to stand the test of probabilities in their cross-examintion and, therefore, putting reliance on the statements of these witnesses for conviction of the appellants is most unsafe. THE learned trial court while convicting these appellants only relied upon the examination-in-chief of these witnesses without discussing the cross-examina tion part, 11. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we refrain from relying upon the statements of these interested witnesses against these two appellants and as such we accept the appeal, set aside the judgment, and order dated 28-2-1980 passed by the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1979 and acquit the appellants, Prem and Lallu, of the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of doubt. THE appellants are on bail. THEy need not surrender. THEir bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. Appeal allowed. .