PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the course of decision of the case State Vs. Shamas -Din, under section 302/210 R. P. C. the learned Sessions Judge. Badarwah, has made the following remarks:

(2.) IN Dr. Raghubir Saran Vs State of Bihar and anr. (A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 1), the Supreme Court has held as under:

(3.) THE impugned passage simply reiterates the reasons briefly given earlier in the judgment that the testimony of Mohammad Akbar and Mohamad Latif should be examined with great care and caution. Mohamad Akbar had appeared at the committal stage and unreservedly supported the prosecution case. At trial he turned turtle and resiled from what he had stated at the committal stage. His testimony at the trial was transferred to the Sessions court file and the question naturally arose whether that testimony should be accepted Dealing with this question, the learned Sessions Judge, took stock of the reasons given by the witness for the discrepancy between the two statements The witness had stated that he was first taken in as a suspect and subsequently released and listed as a witness on payment of money. The learned Sessions Judge referred to this circumstances at the appropriate stage and has repeated it in the ultimate passage of the judgment to make it more specific and conspicuous. There can be hardly any doubt that the circumstance had vital bearing on the question as to whether the testimony of the witness given by him at the committal stage should be accepted or not, which naturally arose for consideration in the course of judgment. The remarks relatable to this witness cannot, therefore, be said to be alien in the matter of the disposal of the case,