JOTINDRA NATH BARAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a Rule obtained to show cause why the conviction and sentences passed on the petitioners should not be set aside upon the grounds set out in the Rule.

(2.) The complainants were three individuals, Chatur, Bhagirath and Madhab, three brothers, and Chatur was the only one who gave evidence on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Judge pointed out in his judgment that "neither Bhagirath nor Madhab had been examined for the prosecution though they took such prominent parts in the affair." Madhab s absence was explained by the allegation that he was too ill to come to Court, and his wife was called on behalf of the prosecution to prove that fact. No explanation was given for the absence of Bhagirath. Therefore, as far as the complainants were concerned, the case rested upon the evidence of Chatur alone.

(3.) The evidence of Chatur was not entirely satisfactory. The learned Judge pointed out that part of his story was so extraordinary that he could not accept it. He said, "as regards the alleged visit of Chatur to the cutchery shortly before the occurrence I am unable to believe this story, as it is put for- ward at a very late stage and 11 absurd on the face of it." When a part of the evidence of perhaps one of the most important witnesses in the case has been characterized as absurd on the face of it, it makes one hesitate to accept the rest of the evidence of that witness. So much for the evidence of Chatur, the complainant.