IQBAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Iqbal Singh against the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gonda, dismissing the appeal against his conviction under Section 324 IPC and sentence for one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution case was that there was some enmity between the applicant and the victim of the offence Pateshwari resident of village Kanje Mau, police station Colonelganj Gonda. It is said that on 5-3-1974 at about 8 a. m. while Pateshwari was taking a bullockcart, loaded with sugarcane and had hardly gone about two furlongs from his village, the applicant emerged out from a ditch adjoining the path way. THE applicant asked him to stop the bullock cart. Pateshwari got down from the bullockcart and raised an alarm. THE applicant was armed with a spear and he thrust the spear blow on the back of his right side. On the arrival of the witnesses he ran away. THE applicant denied the charge and alleged he was implicated because of enmity.

(3.) THE complainant had examined himself and two witnesses, namely, PW 2 Bhawani Prasad and PVV 3 Chhedi. Both these witnesses are chance witnesses. It is true that on the path way, the persons who happened to pass that way would be the natural witnesses, but as it is easy for people to say any thing to show their presence on the path way, the reasons for the same should have been examined. Both the courts below did not examine the reasons given by these witnesses for their presence on the spot. That is a material defect in appreciation of evidence. PW 3 is Bhawani Prasad. His house was about 7 or 8 miles from the scene. He was said to be going to Kanje Mau where lie had a contract at pond. THE witness has given his residence as Kutubpur. He admitted that if he would go from Kutubpur to Kanje Mau, the place of incident would not fall in the way. It is only from village Sarayan that this place may fall in the way. THE witness tried to explain that he had a house in village Sarayan also. THEre is however, nothing to corroborate his allegation about his residence is Sarayan, He admitted that he was only a voter in Kutubpur and not in Sarayan. THEn to the investigating officer also he had not stated that he was going from village Sarayan at that time. He could not give any reason as to why the investigating officer had not mentioned that fact. Thus the presence of this witness at the scene of incident is doubtful.