MANGOO Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 2 -A of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. Mangoo, original accused No.1 and Hanumant Singh, original accused No.3 are the appellants. They along with 2 others - Baldeo Singh (A -2) and Sardar Singh alias Daulatawala (A -4) were tried for offence under sections 302 and 302 read with section 34, IPC. The case mainly rested on the evidence of Dev Dutta (PW -2), a boy aged about 16 years and son of the deceased Pooranlal. The trial Court acquitted all the four accused holding that the evidence of the sole witness namely PW -2 was not wholly reliable. The learned trial Judge discarded his evidence on the ground that the medical evidence is in conflict and that there is possibility of the witness having been turtored and that there are certain discrepancies in material particulars in his evidence.

(2.) THE State preferred an appeal and the High Court having examined PW -2's evidence in the light of surrounding circumstances carefully considered all the reasons given by the trial Court and held that the reasoning given by the trial Court is wholly unsound and allowed the appeal convicting all the four accused. It is stated thatA -4 died and that A -2 did not prefer any appeal. Hence, the present appeal by A -1 and A -3.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submits that if PW -2 has really seen the occurrence, he would not have given such a discrepant version with regard to the blows given by A -3 and as regards which portion of the weapon was used in inflicting such blows. PW -2 no doubt in his deposition stated that A -3 first inflicted blows with Pharsa on the back of the deceased with its blunt side and then inflicted a blow with the sharp side on his father's arm. Having seen this, he entered into Bareja and hid himself and heard the cries. Commenting on this, it is said that the medical evidence does not show any injury having been caused by the blunt side of the Pharsa and at any rate PW -2 on his own admission would not have seen the entire occurrence and in such a situation the evidence of the sole witness ought not 'to have been relied upon by the High Court particularly in the view that the trial Court rejected the same by giving good reasons.