RUDDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the hearing of this appeal it was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants had been seriously prejudiced as the learned Sessions Judge during the trial had disallowed a certain question being put to one of the Important witnesses named Satya Narain.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the murder of Pahlad took place in a ghar while he was sleeping on a cot, and only other two persons who were in the ghar at the time of the murder were Sardar Lal and Satya Narain who were also sleeping on two different cots a few paces away from the cot of Pahlad. Sardar Lal and Satya Narain are two of the witnesses on whose statements the prosecution relies to prove the case against the appellants. The murder is said to have been committed by Rudder appellant by firing two shots at Pahlad. Sardar Lal in his evidence stated that he woke up on hearing the sound of a shot being fired and thereafter saw the appellants running away which implies that he did not actually see any of the two shots being fired by Rudder appellant. The other witness, Satya Narain, who is a young boy aged 13 years also stated that he woke up on the sound of firing of a pistol and saw the three accused who were near Pahlad's cot. He went on to add that he saw the accused Rudder firing a second shot with a pistol. In this connection learned counsel for the accused, who was appearing in the trial Court, put the following question to this witness:

(3.) In our opinion the view expressed in the ease which has been reproduced above lays down the correct principle of law and that view should be applied to the present case also. In the present case it is clear that the question which was disallowed should have been permitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Satya Narain in his deposition in Court purported to be an eye-witness of the act by which the murder of Pahlad was committed, by stating that he saw the accused Rudder firing a second shot from the pistol. It appears that the defence case was that at the first stage when Satya Narain was examined by the Investigating Officer, he did not make such a statement. All he stated was that he was awakened by the firing of the shot and then he saw these three appellants standing near the cot of Pahlad. The omission was on a very material point If this deposition in Court is believed It Would mean that he is an eye-witness of the commission of the act of murder, whereas if it is disbelieved, it would mean that he did not actually witness the act by which the murder was committed. Such an omission would certainly amount to a contradiction. Had Satya Narain actually seen the second shot being fired it must be expected that he would have mentioned this fact in his statement given to the Investigating Officer. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, wrong in disallowing the question which was put to the witness.