STATE OF M.P. Vs. RAMBAGAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 454/88 also, as both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 23.6.1987, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial Nos. 168/86 and 169/86, whereby all the four accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, of the IPC.

(2.) SINCE , we are affirming the findings and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court, we deem it quite unnecessary to reproduce the details of the prosecution case, which are contained in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, and it would suffice to say that all the four respondents accused persons were put to trial on the charges under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. for the commission of murders of Latel and Soukhilal by strangulating them to death on 30.5.1986.

(3.) ), no one much less the accused persons were named as the assailants of deceased Latel and Soukhilal. 4. The trial Court, on a close scrutiny of the evidence of eye - witnesses Dukhni Bai (PW 1) and Triveni Bai (PW 2), found that during the course of investigation in their case -diary statements, they had not projected themselves as eye -witnesses of the incident of murders of Latel and Soukhilal. The trial Court, on considering the improvements made by these two witnesses in their deposition in the Court on their case -diary statements, found it quite unsafe to place any reliance on their evidence and, therefore, discarded their evidence altogether.