Holding

The High Court erred; the eye‑witness statements were reliable, interest does not per se disqualify testimony, and the prosecution proved the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Summary

The respondents were convicted under s.302 read with s.34 IPC for murdering Rajinder Kumar. The High Court acquitted them, holding that the eye‑witness statements were inconsistent with the post‑mortem report, that the FIR omitted details about the use of spears as lathis, and that the witnesses were interested. The Supreme Court held that an FIR need not contain minute details, that the ocular evidence actually corroborated the medical evidence, and that the mere fact of a witness being interested does not warrant discarding his testimony. It also rejected the High Court's reasoning for dismissing the independent witness PW‑2. Consequently, the Court found the prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the acquittal, reinstating the conviction and life sentence.

Issues considered

The consistency of ocular (eye‑witness) evidence with medical (post‑mortem) evidence
Whether the FIR must contain detailed description of how weapons were used and the effect of any omission
The admissibility of statements of interested witnesses
The credibility of PW‑2’s testimony in view of alleged delay and alleged interest
The correctness of the High Court’s acquittal and the standard for setting aside an order of acquittal

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34

Subjects

murdersection 302 IPCsection 34 IPCeye‑witness testimonyinterested witnessFIRmedical evidencecriminal appellate review

Judgment

885
STATE OF U.P.
A
v.
HARI RAM AND OTHERS

September 7, 1983

[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.]

Criml!fa/ Proceedings-F.l.R. is not supposed to contain minute details.

Evidence of interested witness-Manner in which it should be dealt with;
c
The respondents were convicted and sentenced under s. 302 read with
s. 34 I.P.C. for having caused the death of· one Rajinder Kun1ar by assaulting
hi1n with knives and ba:tan1s (spears). The F.I.R. \Vas lodged withit.1 an hour
of the occurrence and .the Investigating Officer reached the spot within three
hours of the lodging of the FJ.R. and im1nediately thereafter examined, among
others, PWs I and 2 who were eye witnesses to the occurrenc'e. According to D
the post~mortem report the deceased had sustained one stab wound, one
incised wound~ two lacerated wounds and two abrasions. 'The central.evidence
against the respondents- consisted of the statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3 which
was accepted by the trial court.

The respondents preferred an appeal to the High Court which acquitted ll
them inter alia on the ground that there was inconsistency between medical
and ocular evi,Pence inasmuch as the respondents who were alleged to have
been armed with sharp cutting weaPons li~e knives and ha/lams could not ha.,.;e
caused the lacerated wounds and abrasions; that the explanation, given by
• PWs 1, 2 and 3 in their statements that the lacerated wounds and abrasions 1
had beeri caused by the deceased having been struck by the lathi portion of F
the ballams was an afterthought since there was no mention in the F.I.R.
of the fact that balla1ns had been used like lathis; that the evidence of witnesses
PWs 1 and 3 could not be relied upon as they were .interested Witnesses; and
that the circumstance that PW 2 was called fron1 the house of his uncle three
hours after the occurrence indicated that he was not present at the scene of the·:
cr~me and therefore his evidence also could not be felied upon.
G
Allowing the appeal,

HELD : 1. An F.I.R. is not supposed to contain minute detai!s of an
incident; it is merely meant to narrate in brief the facts which led to the
~ncident, viz., the place of occurrence, the' names of assailants, etc. [891 C-D] H.
In. the instant case the High Court was not justified in coming to the
conclusion that the statements of eye witnesses regarding the deceased having
886. SUPREME COURT REPORTS (198313 s.c.k.
been assaulted with the lathi portions of the ._ballams was an afterthought just
because there was no mention in the F.I.R. of the fact that ballan1s had been
A used like lathis. There was no occaSion for the complainant to have mentioned
such detailed facts as to how the various arms were wielded and in what
manner and to what extent. The witnesses had clearly explained. in their
statements that the accused had plied and struck the deceased with the lathi
portions of the ballams on the front side and this was fully. corroborated by
the medical eyidence which showed that the two lacerated wounds were on the
B right side of the front portion of the head. Thus far front being inconsistent
the ocular evidence fully corroborated the medical evidence. I~ can safely be
presumed that the copies of statements recorded by the Investigating Officer
had been supplied to the respondents long before the trial started. If there
was any omission in their statements regarding thQ fact that ba/lams were uSed
as lathis, it is inconceivable that the defence would not have drawn the attention
of the witnesses to this omission which would have disclosed a manifest defect
c in the prosecution eviderice. Further, the Investigating Offic·er had categori-
cally denied the suggestion that the statements of witnesses had been recorded
after the receipt of the post-mortem report. (891 H, 892 A, 890 F-H, 891 A·B]

2. The mere fact that witnesses ar.e interested is no ground for throwing
out their evidence overboard. All that is necessary is that in such cases the
·o evidence of the 'vitnesses should be examined with caution and, having ·done.
that, if the court feels that the evidence does not suffer from any other legal or
factual infirmity, there· is no reason to distrust the evidence of such a witness.
The evidence of an interested witness is not like the ev.idence of an appro.Ver
which would need corroboration and the rule of caution cannot be confirmed
in a strait-jacket. 894 F'G]

.E
In the instant case the High Court rejected the evidence of PWs ·1 and 3
on the sole ground that they ·were interested and did not enter into the·
intrinsic merits of their '~vidence. [889 EJ

The High Court was also not justified in rejecting the evidence of PW 2
F who was an independent witness. 1t is not disputed that PW 2 used to r~main
at his fodder shop and sleep there and he was therefore the most competent
witness to see the occurrence. There is no inherent improbability in the state-
ment of PW 2 that, being terrified by the incident, he had gone to the house
of his uncle from where he was called by the Investigating Officer. The circum-
stances that he was called from 'the house of his uncle three 11ours after the
occurrence~d was not found to be present at his shop .cannot lead to
G the conclusion that he could not be present there at" the time of- the
occurrence. [893 H, 894 A-El

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 450
of 1977.
B
From the judgment and Order dated rl\e 23rd September, 1976
of the Allahabad High Court in Criminai Appeal No. 166 of 1972.
ti.P. STATE v. HARi RAM (Faza/ Aii, J.) 887'

Gopa/ Subramaniam, Da/veer Bhandari and R. S. Yadav for the
Appellant. A

R. K. Garg and V. J. Francis for the Respondents .
.
The Judgme.nt of the Court was delivered by
B
FAZ.\L Au, J. This appeal )ly special leave is directed against
a judgment dated September 23, 1976 of the Allahabad High Court
acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them after
setting aside the judgment of the Sessions Judge who had· convicted·
them under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and c
sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

The facts of the case have been detailed and fully narrated by
the High Court and the Sessions Judge and it is not. necessary for us
to repeat the same all over again. Suffice it to say that the occurence· D
is alleged to have taken place on the 29th of May 1969 near the office
of Cane society in Mahalia Chohanan of Jwalapur town situated
within the District of Saharanpur.. The deeeased (Rajinder Kumar)
and the respondents w~re closely related and there appears to have
been some sort of a chronic dispute between them which culminated E
in the said occurrence on May 29, 1969. In the morning of May 29,
1969 Rajinder Kumar scolded the respondent Hari Ram and his
brother Atma Ram for having misbehaved with his father and there-
;i.fter a short altercation took place in the course of which Hari Ram
and Atma Ram threatened to kill him (Rajinder Kumar). According
to the prosecution, on the same night at about 10.30 p.m. while the F
decea.sed was proceeding from his house to his Gher and was neg0ti-
ating the road at a point very close the office of the Cane Society he
was confronted by the four respondents, viz, Hari Ram, Satyapal,
Naqli and Surendra. N aqli and Surendra were armed with knives
with spears. On seeing the deceased, Hari Ram exhorted and incited G
his companions to kill the deceased as a result of which all the four
respondents assaulted the deceased with their respective · weapons.
According to the prosecution, Naqli and Surendra struck the deceased
with their knives while Hari Ram and Satyapal assaulted him with ·
the Lathi portion of the spears. Thereafter, the respondents fled
eastward towards the tiraha. PW I (Rattan Singh), PW 2 (Sure.sh)
H
and PW 3 (Harish) were attracted to the scene of ·the crime and
witnessed the same.
SSS SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983) 3 s.c.a.

It was further alleged by the prosecution that at the time of tile
A incident apart from the burning 9f the street light it was a moonlight
night also and there could be no difficulty in identifying the assailants.
Even so, the assailants and the deceased were fully known to each
other and even if there was no street light they could have been easily
identified in the moonlight. Even the defence has not been able· to
B show that the date of occurrence was a dark night nor was thi.s fact
questioned before any of the courts. As· a. result of the injuries
received by the deceased he fell down on the spot and died soon after.
PW 1 arranged a rehri and brought it to the place of occurrence in
order to take the deceased to the hospital. The female folk of the
house of Sardar · Singh and. other neighbours also. arrived and
c . surrounded the dead body and everybody was weeping and crying.
Harish Chand (PW 3) drew up a report (Ex. Ka-I) of the occurrence
at the scene of the crime with the help of electric light on the street
and proceeded to the police-station alongwith Ratan Singh (PW I)
and others where. the deadbody was placed in the custody of the
police and the written report was lodged at about 11.15 p.m. After
D
completing the usual formalities, the investigating officer, M. P. Wats
(PW 13), drew up the farde beyan which was treated as the F.IR. An
endorsement on the FIR shows that it was despatched to the Magis-
trate some time' in the midnight· after 12 O'clock. . This fact is
important because much has been made by the respondents regarding
E the ante-timing of the ·FIR by the police. The investigating Officer
after taking down the FIR proceeded to the spot where he reached
at about 2.30 a. m. and immediately examined the witnesses Surat
Singh (not examined in court), ltatan Singh (PW I) and Suresh
(PW 2). He also summoned some persons from the locality and
interrogated. some people of the mohalla. It was also alleged by PW
F 13 that on making enquiries from the accused-respondents, Naqli made
a statement which led to the recovery of knife from inside his house
which was found concealed in the folds of certain clothes kept in a
.tin box. As none of the courts below have relied on °the evidence of
recovery we would leave the matter here.
G
The case of the defence was that the deceased was murdered by
some unknown persons and the respondents were falsely implicated
because of the previous enmity. The trial court after a very careful
H consideration and meticulous discussion of the evidence on record
found that the prosecution case wa·s proved beyond reason~ble doubt
and accordingly ,convicted the respondents under s. 302 read with
s. 34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, as stated
tJ.P. STATE v. HARi RAM (Fazal Ali, J.) 889

above. The respondents then preferred an appeal to the High Court
which acquitted them and hence this appeal by the State of U. P. in A
this Court. As the matter lies wiihin a very narrow compass and
small spectrum it is not necessary for us to delve into further details
of the case.

The central evidence against the respondents consists of the B
statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3 who proved the occurrence and their
evidence was accepted by the trial court but the High Court refused
to rely on them .. It may be mentioned that out of the eye-witnesses,
PW 1 was not only an independent witness but as would appear from
his evidence he was also a classfellow of one of the respondents,• c
Surendra. In this connection he stated thus --

"Accused Surendra and myself have read in one and
the same school. We both were neighbours also. We. had
good relationships". D

The other two witnesses were no doubt interested to a large extent
and the High Court seems to have rejected their evidence on this
ground alone without enterin·g into the intrinsic merits of their evi-
dence. A careful perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows
that so far as PW 2 is concerned, no good reason has been given as
to why he should be disbelieved nor has the High Court displaced
any of the reasons or circumstances relied upon by the trial court in
placing implicit reliance on the evidenc.e of PW 2. It may also be
mentioned that PW 2 was one of the persons who was examlned by
the Investigating Officer (PW 13) at the spot at about 2.30 a.m. and p
'therefore in our opinion, there should have been very strong reasons
. to disbelieve the eviden.:e of such a witness by the High Court.

This being an appeal against order of acquittal passed by the
High Court, we have very carefully gone through the judgments of
the High Court, that of the trial court and also the evidence of the G
three eye-witnesses, including PW 2. It seems to us that tlie High
Court realising that PW 2 was an independent witness, brushed aside
his evidence on grounds which are wholly untenable. in law. The
cornerstone and sheet-anchor of the High Court's judgment seems to
be two circumstances on which the entire prosecution case has been H
rejected~

I
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 'it983i 3 s.c.i.
(I) that the ocular evidence adduced in court by the
A
· prosecution was wholly inconsistent with the medical
.evidence., and

(2) that the FIR seems to have been lodged some time
in the early hours of the morning of 30th May I 969
B and nol at 11.15 p.m. on 29.5.69, as alleged by ihe
prosecution, and, therefore, ihere was sufficient time
for the ·prosecution to bolster up a case against the
the respondents in view of the previous enmity. ·

c There are some other reasons given by the High Court to which we
·shall refe~ hereafter.

Coming to the first circumstance relied upon by the High Court
about the inconsistency between the ocular and the mediCal evidence,
we are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has committed a
D serious and grave error of law by misreading the evidence of the eye-
witnesses on this question. According to Dr. S. S. Anand, (PW 14),
who conducted post-mortem ·examination on the dead body of the
deceased, the deceased had sustained one stab wound and one. incised·
wound besides two lacerated wounds and two abrasions. The funda,
E mental reasons given .by the High Court was that as all the respon-
dents, according to the prosecution, were armed with sharp cutting
weapons like spears, the lacerated wounds or the abrasions could not
have been caused by the saiq weapons and therefore. there was a
serious inconsistency between the medical and the ocular evidence
which by itself amounted to a manifest defect in the prosecution case,
F resulting in its rejection. It is true that according to the evidence of
the eye-witnesses· the respondents Naqli and· Surendra were.armed
with knives while Hari Ram and Satyapal were armed with ballams
(spears). The witnesses had clearly explained in their statements that
the accused, who were armed with ballams, plied .or struck the·
G deceased by the lathi portion of the spears on the front side. This
is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. whi.ch shows that the
two lacerated wounds were on the right side of· the front portion of
the head .. Thus, far from being inconsistent, the ocular. evidence
fully corroborates the medical evidence. The High Court, however,.
H seems to have made a mountain of a mole hill by concluding that as
there was no mention in the FIR.of the fact that ballams were used.
like lathis, the explanation given by the witnesses in the court that
ballams were used like lathis or that the deceased was struck by the
U.l'. STATE v. HARi RAM (Fazal Ali, J.) 891

lathi portion of the ballams appears to be an after thought. The
High Court seems to suggest that' the story . of ballams having been A
plied like lathis Wqs introduced for the first time after the medical
·report was given in order to give an explanation for the apparent
incoosistency between the ocular and the medical evidence. We are,
however, unable to agree with this somewhat broad and speculative
process of reasoning, particularly when PW 13 categorically denied
the suggestion made to him by the defence counsel that the statements
B·
of the witnesses were recorded in the morning after receipt of the
post-morten report (vide p. 40 of the paper book). It is common
ground that the FIR does not contain full or meticulous details of
the incident but is merely meant to narrate the brief facts which led
to the incident, viz., names of the assailants and the place of occur· c
rence, etc. Therefore, there was no occasion for the complaint to
have mentioned such detailed facts as to how the various arms were
wielded, in what manner and to what extent. A FIR is not supposed
to contain such minute details. Moreover, we find that the FIR in the
instant case was filed at about 11.55 p. m. and according to the sole
testimoney of PW 13, the Investigating officer, he reached the spot
D
2 30 a.m., i. e., within 3 hours of the lodging of the. FIR, and
recorded the statement. of the eye-witnesses. It can be safely presumed
that copies,.of the statements reco.rded by PW 13 had been supplied to
the respondents, as required by the provisions of the Code of Criminal ·
Procedure, long before the trial started. If there was any omission E
in their statements regarding the fact that ballams . were used as
lathis, it is inconceivable that the defence would not have drawn
attention of the witness to this omission which would have disclosed
a manifest defect in the prosecution evidence. PWs 1·arid 3 have
categorically stated in their evidence that ballams were used ·as la this
and they were not sought to be contradicted of the omission of this F
fact in their statements before the police. Had the witnesses omitted
to state this fact in their earlier statements before the police, their
attention' must have been drawn to the said material omission when
they appeared as witnesses. in court and to the Investigating Officer
(PW 13) when he was examined in court. In · the absence of this G
important circumstance the High Court was wholly unjustiflea in
making a capital ou.t of the alleged ommissioD. which was not there
at all. This non-existent omission seems to be the very fabric and
foundation for the reasoning of the High Court in rejecting the
Prosecution case. H
In view of these circumstances, the High Court was not at all
justified in jumpinsto the conclusion that the statements qfthe e:ye.
892 SUPRb'ME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 S.C.R.

. witnessenegarding the deceased having been assaulted by the lathi
A portion of the spears was an afterthought .. The following observations
of the High Court, with due respect, amount to an imputation against·
the witnesses and inflicting an 'unkind cut indeed' on the testimony
of Satyapal and Hari Rum :

B "His evidence is in conflict with the medical
evidence, as it is clear from the post-mor.tem report that
two lacerated wounds were found on the body of the
deceased, which goes·to show that the deceased was also
assaulted by a blunt weapon like a lathi.."

C Thus if this circumstance disappears then the very edifice on
which the reasoning of the High Court is based so far as the point
relating to inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence is
concerned stands completely demolished.

D Another important reason·. given by the High Court is that the
FIR seems to have been ante-tim.ed and very great stress was laid on
the fact that the recitals in the FIR clearly show that the morning
incident had taken place a day before the Report was lodged at the
police station which means that if the occurrence had taken place a
day earlier the report was lodged tbe next day. On a specific
E question put to' PW 1 he clearly explained _that he used the word
'yesterday' b.ecause at that time he was in great shock and distress
following the heinous crime committed on the deceased who was his
close relation. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that villagers
don't have a mathematical idea of the aciual time when midnight
begins or ends. As the occurrence resulting in exchange of hot words
F
had taken' place on the morning of 29th May 1969 and the FIR was
lodged near about the midnight, the informant could have reasonably
thought that in view of the nightfall the next day had arrived though
from the mathematical or astronomical point of view this may be
G quite correct. What difference would it make if the FIR was lodged
at 11.15 p.m, or 12.00 O'clock or past 12 a: m, If the FIR was
lodged immediately after 12 O'clock in the midnight then the descrip-
tion of the word 'yesterday' would be quite correct.

In these circumstances, we are satisfied that. not much can be
H
made even of this so called infirmity and from this we cannot jump
to the conclusion that the occurrence took place on the morning of
30th May and not on the night of 29th Ma¥. Moreover, the eviden<;e
U.P. STATE v. HARi RAM (Fazal Ali, J.) 893

of the Investigating Officer and other eye-witnesses clearly discloses
that PW 13 (1.0.) arrived at the spot near about 2.30 a. m. and took A
'the statements of eye-witnesses and interrogated Jot of other persons.
This, therefore, completely excludes the possibility that the occurrence
took place some time in the morning of 30th May. 1n·111ese circum- ·
stances, therefore, assuming that there may be some infirmity, it
appears to be of a very trivial· nature and not sufficient to lead to B
conclusion that the FIR was ante-timed.

Another important error into which the High Court seems to
have fallen is to reject thr evidence of the only important independent
witness, Suresh (PW 2), without examining his evidence on intrinsic
merits and giving good reasons for doing so. All that the High
c
Court had to say regarding PW 2 may be extracted thus:-

"He also corroborated the statement of Harish Chand
(PW 3) regardiug the incident. His evidence is also in
conflict with the medical evidence. He stated that after
D
the incident, he became afraid and went to the house of
his uncle and was called from there by the Investigating
Officer at 2 a.m. The explanation furnished by him for
going to the house of his uncle after the incident cannot
be accepted as it appears to be highly unnatmal. . If he E
was present at his fodder shop at t]je time .of the incident
he should have been there when the Investigating Officer
to the place of occurrence. The fact that he, was called.
from the house of his uncle by the Investigating Officer at
2 a. m. on 30.5.69 indicates that he was not present at his
fodder shop at the time of the incidenf. It was admitted F
by him that Chhajja of Phu! Singh, the uncle of Surender,
appellant, was broken by the collusion of his tnlek and
the driver of his truck paid the compensation for the
damages caused to the Chhajja to Phu! Singh. He also
admitted that the deceased was his class-fellow." G

If we examine the reasons given by the High Court we find that
the reasons given are whplly unsustainable in law. As already
indicated, the first reason that the ocular evidence was in conflict with
H
the medical evide':1ce no lon~er survives. Secondly, the fact that
being terrrified by the incident PW 2 went to the house of his uncle
from where he was called by the Investigating Officer qoes not show
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] 3 s.c.R ..

: that his evidence was false and we : do not see any · inherent • k
A improbability in the statement of PW 2. It is no( disputed that the
witness used to remain at his fodder shop and sleep there. He would,
therefore,. be the most competent witness to see the occurrence. The
circumstance that he was called from the house of his uncle three
hours after the occurrence and was not found to ·be pres·ent at his
8 ~hop cannot lead to the conclusion that he could . not be present at
the time of the occurrence. This reasoning is based purely on conjec-
tures and the High Court seems to have overlooked the psychology
of the witness who.terrified by a murder taking place.in front of his
eyes thought it expedient to go to bis uncle's house.

c The last reason given by the High Court in rejecting the
evidence of PW 2 is that the deceased was his classfellow and there-
fore he could not be said to be a disinterested witness. We. are
unable to agree with this line of reasoning because merely being· a
class-fellow, be could not be stamped as an interested witness. Even .
• so, the High Court seems to have overlooked the fact that the witness
D
clearly stated at page 16 of the Paperbook that he was also a class-
fellow of one of the accused-respondents, Surendra. Thus, far from
being interested, the witness seems to be a common friend of the
accused and, therefore, is not likely to depose falsely against one or
the other.
E
This Court has laid down in a series of cases that the mere fact
that witnesses are interested is no ground for throwing out their
evidence aboard. All that is necessary is that in such cases, the
evidence of the witnesses should .be examined with caution and
having done that if the court feels that the evidence does .not suffer
F from any other legal or factual infirmity, there is 110. reason_ to dis-
trust the evidence of sucn a witness. It may be mentioned that the
evidence of .an interested witness is not like the evidence of an
approver which would need corroboration and the rule <?f caution
cannot be confined 'in a strait-jacket.
G
Summing up, therefore, these are the only reasons' given by the
High Court for reversing the well-reasoned judgment of the trial
court which convicted the respondents under s; 302 read with s. 34,
I.P.C.
H . _,,
Mr. Garg, appearing for the respondents vehemently contended
tb,at ~n an appea!against
.. acquittal
. this Co\lrt would not interfere
U.P. STATE v. HAR! RAM (Fazal Ali, J.) 895
unless there are substantial or compelling reasons for the same or
where the view taken by the fiigh Court appears to be absolutely
perverse. This was not a case, argued the counsel, in which it could
be said that a different view was reasonably possible and hence the
acquittal should be upheld. We are, however, unable to · agree with
this argument because after carefully scrutinising the reasons given
by the High Court in reversing the judgment of the trial court, we
B
are clearly of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court
perilously borders on perversity and this is certainly not a case where
two views are possible.

Mr. Garg drew our attention to certain decisions of this Court
regarding the principles on which an order of acquittal could be set c
aside and laid special stress on the ratio in the cases of Thu/ia Kali
v. The State of Tamil Nadu (1) and Dalbir Kaur & Ors. v. State of
Punjab(') We are fully alive to the principles laid down by this
• Court and on the findings of fact arrived and the application of law
made by us, we are of the opinion that this case is in no way
inconsistent with the pr.inciples enunciated by this Court in the cases D
referred to above.

' Lastly, Mr Garg appealed to this Court not to interfere iu this
case as the accused have· been subjected to a .waiting period of
about 15 years starting from the institution of the case till the judg· E
ment of this Cou;t. We. are afraid, it is not possible to concede to
the request of the counsel because once we find that the respoudents
are guilty of the offence of murder, whatever be the nature of the
timelag between the prosecution and conviction . the law must take
its course.
F
The High Court has committeed serious errors of law· in
appreciating and marshalling the evidence and in basing its conclu-
sions more on speculation that on the evidence led before the trial
court. On a careful consideration and detailed review of the evidence
and circumstances of the case we are fully satisfied that there is no G
good reason to disbelieve the testimony of PWs !, 2 and 3 particularly
when the evidence of PWs I and 3 was· fully corroborated by PW 2
who was doubtless an independent witness and whose evidence did
not suffer from any manifest defect. We, therefore, fully believe the
H
'
(IJ [I9nJ 3 s.c.R: 622.
(2) [1917) I S.C.R. 280.
8,6 . . SUPllBME COURT REPORTS . (1983) 3 S.C.R •

testimony of the eye-witnesses and hold that from the evidence Oil k--
A record the prosecution case has been proved beyond reason-
able doubt and the order of acquittal passed by the High Court
was wrong on a point of. law which is sufficient to warrant our
interference. In these circnmstances, it is impossible to sustain the
judgment of the High Court.
B
We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the
High Court and convict the respondents under s. 302 read with s. 34
of the Indian Penal Code and sentence them to imprisonment for life
for causing the death of the deceased, Rajinder Kumar. The respon'
dents who were on bail, will now surrender to their bail-bonds and
c be taken into custody to serve out the sentence imposed.
. ._
u.11.c. Appeal allowetj.
•
•

•