# Chet Ram & Ors. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 726
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 1992
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Gautam Chowdhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chet-ram-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-45724
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 302/34-Appeal against conviction.

Under these circumstances, the very conduct of
the informant- the sole eye-witness- becomes
improbable and unnatural and his testimony
requires independent corroboration, which
independent corroboration is woefully lacking in
this case. (Para 25)

There was ample occasion for the informant to
have ascertained proper condition of the
deceased in the day light, but that too was not
done. We may observe that these aspects
create doubt on the veracity and truthful
version of testimony of P.W.1. (Para 26)

We unhesitatingly hold that the eye-witness
P.W.1 is not trustworthy and his testimony is
inconsistent with his natural conduct after the
occurrence had taken place. Here we can
safely observe that P.W.1 appears to be an
interested
witness
and
under
these
circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that the argument extended by the
learned counsel for the appellant carries
substance and the same is worth its credence.
(Para 27)

On aforesaid vital aspects and particularly the
withholding of the independent witness and
more so in the event of non-corroboration of
the testimony of P.W.1 in the prevailing facts
and circumstances of the case, the trial court
misjudged the situation and wrongly appraised
the facts, vis-a-vis, circumstances of the case
and arrived at wrong conclusion by convicting
the accused for charge under Section 302/34
IPC, which finding of conviction and sentence
cannot be sustained for the specific reasons
aforesaid and the same is liable to be set aside.
(Para 28)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-2)

## Text

726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.J.M. concerned will issue NBW against
accused appellants.

38. If accused appellants appears or
brought before C.J.M. concerned they
shall be sent to jail for execution of their
sentence.

39. Accordingly, both the appeals are
dismissed.
----------
(2020)02ILR A726

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.
THE HON'BLE GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 917 of 1992

Chet Ram & Ors. ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Subash Kumar, Sri Amit Kumar
Srivastava A/C, Sri Gyanendra Prakash
Srivastava, Sri Pankaj Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 302/34-Appeal against conviction.

Under these circumstances, the very conduct of
the informant- the sole eye-witness- becomes
improbable and unnatural and his testimony
requires independent corroboration, which
independent corroboration is woefully lacking in
this case. (Para 25)

There was ample occasion for the informant to
have ascertained proper condition of the
deceased in the day light, but that too was not
done. We may observe that these aspects
create doubt on the veracity and truthful
version of testimony of P.W.1. (Para 26)

We unhesitatingly hold that the eye-witness
P.W.1 is not trustworthy and his testimony is
inconsistent with his natural conduct after the
occurrence had taken place. Here we can
safely observe that P.W.1 appears to be an
interested
witness
and
under
these
circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that the argument extended by the
learned counsel for the appellant carries
substance and the same is worth its credence.
(Para 27)

On aforesaid vital aspects and particularly the
withholding of the independent witness and
more so in the event of non-corroboration of
the testimony of P.W.1 in the prevailing facts
and circumstances of the case, the trial court
misjudged the situation and wrongly appraised
the facts, vis-a-vis, circumstances of the case
and arrived at wrong conclusion by convicting
the accused for charge under Section 302/34
IPC, which finding of conviction and sentence
cannot be sustained for the specific reasons
aforesaid and the same is liable to be set aside.
(Para 28)

Criminal Appeal allowed. (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J. & Hon'ble Gautam
Chowdhary, J.)

(1)

Heard
Sri
Amit
Kumar
Srivastava, learned amicus curiae for
appellant no.1- Chet Ram and Sri
Gyanendra Prakash Srivastava, learned
counsel for the appellant no.3 Nar Singh,
learned
A.A.G.
assisted
by
learned
A.G.As. for the State and perused the
record of this appeal.

(2) By way of instant criminal
appeal, challenge has been made to the
validity and sustainability of the judgment
and order of conviction dated 13.05.1992
passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge,
2 All. Chet Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
727
Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No.276 of 1991
(State Vs. Chet Ram and others), arising
out of case crime no.258/1990, under
Sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station-
Subhash
Nagar,
District-
Bareilly,
whereby appellants have been sentenced to
imprisonment for life.

(3) Appropriate to mention that
during the course of appeal appellant no.2-
Ghanshyam- and appellant no.4- Mahipal-
expired, therefore, their appeal stood
abated against them vide order of this
Court dated 06.09.2019.

(4) Now, this appeal qua the
surviving appellant no.1 Chet Ram and
appellant
no.3
Nar
Singh
is
for
adjudication.

(5) Facts relevant for adjudication of
this appeal as reflected from record appear
to be that first information report was
lodged at Police Station- Subhash Nagar,
District- Bareilly by informant- Heera Lal
with
allegations
that
yesternight
on
18.09.1990 at around 9.00 P.M. he
(informant) went to see off his father at the
tubewell
for
sleeping.
He
was
accompanied by Natthu Lal s/o Ram Lal
of the village. The electric light was
illuminated at the tubewell. The informant
along with others arrived at the tubewell
and started conversing with each other, in
the meanwhile, real cousin brothers of the
informant- Chet Ram, Ghanshyam s/o
Durga Prasad along with co- villagers, Nar
Singh s/o Natthu Lal, Mahipal s/o Durga
Prasad- with whom old enmity on account
of landed property is going on, possessing
countrymade
pistol
in
their
hands,
appeared on the spot and threatened them
that he (the informant) and his father
(deceased) will not be spared today,
whereupon, the informant and Natthu
started running away, when he saw that his
father trying to run away and go up- stairs
on a bamboo ladder placed at short
distance, when all the aforesaid assailants
with intention to commit murder, fired
upon
the
father
of
the
informant,
whereupon, his (father of the informant)
father fell down. The accused also fired on
the informant and Natthu. The informant-
Heera
Lal
along
with
Natthu
hid
themselves in the field being frightened
with the incident. The dead body was
stated to have been lying on the spot. It
was requested that report be lodged against
the accused and action be taken. This
report is Exhibit Ka-1.

(6) Relevant entries were made in the
concerned check F.I.R. at Case Crime
No.258/90, under Sections 302/307 I.P.C.
at Police Station- Subhash Nagar, District-
Bareilly, which is on record as Ex. Ka.2A.

(7) Pursuant to the entries so made in
the check F.I.R., a case was registered
against the accused at Rapat No.9 dated
18.09.1990
at
06.10
hours
in
the
concerned General Diary at aforesaid case
crime number under aforesaid section of
Indian Penal Code, copy whereof is on
record as Ex.Ka.3.

(8) The investigation was entrusted
to S.I. Sri Anil Kumar Malik. The
Investigating Officer- Anil Kumar Malik
proceeded to the spot and prepared the
inquest report of deceased- Bheem Sen on
18.09.1990, which inquest report has been
proved by P.W.3- Harsh Vardhan Gaud.
The relevant papers were also prepared at
the same time- say- photo of dead body
(photo nash)- Exhibit Ka-5, Challan dead
body Exhibit Ka-6, letter to R.I. Exhibit
Ka-7, letter to C.M.O. Exhibit Ka-8,
Specimen Seal Exhibit Ka-9 and these
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have also been proved by the aforesaid
prosecution
witness-
P.W.3
Harsh
Vardhan Gaud. The cadaver of deceased
was sent for postmortem examination and
site plan of the place of occurrence was
prepared by the Investigating Officer- Anil
Kumar Malik. The site plan has been
proved by the aforesaid prosecution
witness- P.W.3 Harsh Vardhan Gaud as
Exhibit Ka-10.

(9) Postmortem examination on the
cadaver of deceased was conducted on
18.09.1990 at 04.00 P.M. by Dr. A.K. Jain
P.W.2, wherein the following ante-mortem
injury
was
noted
at
the
time
of
examination:

Ante mortem injuries

1. Gun shot wound of entry 4 cm
x 21⁄2 cm x chest cavity deep on the right
side of chest. 4 cm away from mid-line and
11 cm below of the right scapula. Margins
inverted and lacerated blackening present
around the wound.

2. A gun shot wound of entry 3
cm x 2 cm x bone deep over the medial
side of right below wrist joint. Blackening
present around the wound. Margins
inverted and lacerated.

3. Exit lacerated wound 10 cm x
6 cm x bone deep through and through
over dorsum of right hand, corresponding
to injury no.2. Underneath metacarpal
bones fractured with pieces.

4. A gun shot wound of entry 3
cm x 2.5 cm x bone deep over back of left
hand in the middle margins inverted and
lacerated.
Blackening,
tattooing
and
scorching present around the wound and
over the wrist joint and partly over lower
part
of
left
forearm.
Underneath
metacarpal bones fractured into pieces
and one yellow metallic bullet recovered.

5. A gun shot lacerated wound
through and through 3 cm x 1 cm on the
angle of upper and lower lips.

In the opinion of doctor, cause of
death was stated to be haemorrhage and
shock as a result of ante-mortem injuries.
The postmortem report is Exhibit Ka-2.

(10) Record also reflects that during
course of investigation empty cartridges
.315 bore and one bullet .315 bore etc.
were taken into possession by the police
and wrapped in a polythene pack and was
sealed in a cloth and after preparing the
memo of the same, which is Exhibit Ka11. The memo of bamboo ladder from the
place of occurrence is Exhibit Ka-12. The
investigating officer also collected simple
soil as well as blood stained soil from the
spot and kept it in two separate containers
and memo was prepared on 18.09.1990,
which is Exhibit Ka-13.

(11) Statement of the prosecution
witnesses
was
recorded
and
after
completing the formalities charge- sheet-
Exhibit Ka-14- was filed against the
accused.
Consequently,
the
trial
commenced and trial Judge charged the
accused under Section 302/34 IPC for
committing murder of Bheemsen on
17.09.1990 around 9 P.M. within police
station- Subhash Nagar. The Charge was
read over and explained to the accused,
who denied the charge and opted for trial.

(12) In turn, prosecution was asked
to adduce its testimony in order to prove
the guilt. The prosecution produced in all
three witnesses out of whom, one is
witness of fact and the rest two are formal
witnesses.
Brief
reference
of
the
prosecution witnesses is ut-infra:-
2 All. Chet Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
729

Heera Lal P.W.1 is the first
informant and he claimed himself to be an
eye-witness of the occurrence. He has
proved written report Ext. Ka.-1.

Dr. A.K. Jain P.W. 2 has
conducted post-mortem and has proved
post-mortem examination report as Exhibit
Ka-2.

In this case, the Anil Kumar
Malik, the Investigating Officer has not
been examined, however, in order to prove
the investigation and the prosecution
papers Harsh Vardhan Gaud, P.W.3 has
been examined and he has proved the
relevant
papers
on
behalf
of
the
Investigating Officer.

(13) Except as above, no other
evidence was produced and the statement
of the accused was recorded u/s 313
Cr.P.C., wherein they claimed to have
been falsely implicated on account of
enmity and collusion of the informant with
the police.

(14) However, no evidence was
led by the defence.

(15) Consequently, the case was
posted for hearing of arguments. After
considering the case on its merits and
appraisal of facts and circumstances
and evaluation of evidence on record,
the
learned
trial
judge
returned
aforesaid finding of conviction against
the accused and sentenced them to
imprisonment for life, which paved
way to this appeal.

(16) Consequently, this appeal.

(17) The moot point that arises
for adjudication of this appeal relates
to the fact whether the incident of
murder in question was caused by the
appellants and the prosecution has proved
the same beyond all reasonable doubt?

(18) Crux contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants rest on the anvil
that the incident narrated, if assumed to be
true, then it is obvious that no one saw the
occurrence and it is not supported by the
available independent witness- say- Natthu
with whom the informant- Heera Lal (son
of the deceased) was stated to have been
conversing at the tubewell, when the
incident occurred. The conduct of the
informant is unbecoming of a reasonable
prudent man and the same is not proper
and it is most unnatural for the reason that
assuming it to be that the father of the
informant was killed by the four assailants
and the informant- the son of the
deceased- ran towards the field at a shot
distance from the place of occurrence and
hid himself in the field and remained there
for the whole night, then as per his
testimony emerging in his examination-inchief, he did not care to go to the spot to
take stock of the situation about the actual
condition of his father after the assailants
had secured their escape, instead from the
field in the next morning he went straight
to his village and from village went to the
police station, this is highly improbable
conduct. Can it be imagined under
circumstance that a person who left the
victim running away after being frightened
by the fire caused by the assailants would
not revisit the spot in the following
morning (after the occurrence) and would
not see the overall situation of the victim
and how can he say with certainty that the
victim died on the spot without revisiting
on the spot after the occurrence. The
examination-in-chief
of
P.W.1
also
supplies the clue that the informant had
strong motive to implicate the accused in
order to grab the property of his uncle
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(taau) Dharam Dass. Next contended,
under
what
circumstances
the
best
testimony of the independent witness-
Natthu was withheld by the prosecution,
this by itself is indicative of fact that
Natthu was not there on the spot at the
time of the occurrence and had he been so
present and witnessed the incident then he
must
have
been
examined
by
the
prosecution
in
corroboration
of
the
testimony of P.W.1. In this case, the
corroboration
from
the
independent
witness must have comeforth in the shape
of Natthu but he has been withheld for no
worthy reason. Had the occurrence taken
place at 9 P.M. in the night? The assailants
would not have spared the other two
witnesses claimed to have been present on
the spot. They (accused) being four in
number must have chased the informant
P.W.1 or at least a gesture chasing him
must have been made in order to eliminate
them so as not leave any sign of the
offence intact regarding the occurrence,
but no such whisper in shape of any chase
or pursuation by the accused is gathered
either from the first information report or
from the testimony of P.W.1 Heera Lal-
the
eye
witness
informant
of
the
occurrence. The learned trial Judge out of
whim and imagination basing his finding
on conjuncture and surmises erroneously
recorded
finding of
conviction
thus
sentenced the accused of charge under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and
sentenced them to imprisonment for life.

(19) Learned A.G.A. while retorting to
above contention has vehemently claimed that
in this case, the learned trial Judge has rightly
acted on the evidence on record and it is trite
law that number of the witnesses is not to
determine the guilt of accused but the quality
evidence and creditworthyness of witness is to
be judged in its entirety and this is the crux of
Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
In this case, the eye account testimony of
P.W.1 Heera Lal cannot be brushed aside
merely on account of certain behavioral
aberrations because the mind set of a person
cannot be said to be working systematically
and under various prevailing circumstances
and the attendant facts of a case it is not
possible to behave soberly as a reasonable man
but it is the bent of the mind compelled by
existing circumstances guides a person, merely
because P.W.1 Heera Lal did not revisited the
place of occurrence after the occurrence and
went straight to the village and from there
moved to the police station and lodged the
report that would not by itself create any
situation for exonerating the appellants. The
four appellants arrived on the spot and opened
fire by their respective country-made guns.
The post-mortem report is indicative of fact
that gunshot entry wound and gunshot exit
would apart from other gunshots were found as
the ante-mortem injuries at the time of the
post-mortem examination by the doctor, and
this by itself will clinchingly establish harmony
between the ocular version of the incident and
the post-mortem examination report. These
consistence circumstances cannot be by-passed
and the trial Judge considered all these aspects-
factual and legal in right perspective emerging
in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses,
vis-a-vis, the attendant facts and circumstances
of the case and has justifiably recorded
conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and
sentenced condingly.

(20) Also considered the rival
submissions.

(21) We have before us only one
prosecution witness of fact P.W.1 Heera
Lal. He has stated in his examination-inchief that he is in possession of the land of
his uncle (taau) Dharam Dass on the basis
of will and is ploughing his field on
2 All. Chet Ram & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
731
account of which, the accused are on
inimical terms with him. Regarding the
incident, he has stated that the incident
occurred at 9 P.M. at the tubewell, when
he went to see off (in the night) his father-
Bheem Sen- at the tubewell along with one
Natthu Lal s/o Ram Lal of the village.
They arrived at the tubewell and all the
three were conversing with each other at
the door of the tubewell, when Chet Ram,
Ghanshyam, Nar Singh and Mahipal
possessing country-made gun in their
hands appeared on the scene from the
western side. There was electricity light on
the spot. The accused exhorted that the son
and the father will not be spared today,
whereupon, all the three started running
away and the father of the informant tried
to go up- stairs on a bamboo ladder placed
at a short distance. At the same time, the
accused fired on him due to which
informant's father fell down. Besides, the
accused also fired towards this witness and
Natthu, but they were saved. After firing
the accused managed their escape towards
western side. However, the informant and
Natthu Lal hid themselves inside the chari
field the whole night being frighted with
the incident. In the morning, they went
back to home in village from where they
proceeded towards the police station, on
way to police station, the informant met
with Hemraj and Harvendra with whom
the informant was acquainted, therefore,
they also accompanied the informant.

The report was scribed by Hemraj
outside the police station thereafter it was
lodged at the police station. This witness
has proved the written report- Exhibit Ka1. Thereafter the informant and Natthu
accompanied the police and arrived on the
spot where the cadaver of the informant's
father was lying on
the place of
occurrence.
Thereafter
necessary
formalities were done by he police. It has
been stated that Natthu Lal being under
fear of the accused is not willing to give
evidence.
This
witness
was
cross-
examined. He has stated in his crossexamination that Sher Singh, who was also
present at his tubewell, as he used to
remain there during night, did not arrive
on the spot and after hearing the sound of
the fire, Sher Singh met the informant near
the dead body of the informant's father
when the informant arrived on the spot
with the police.

(22) Further stated in his crossexamination
about
fact
that
some
altercation has taken place previously
between the accused and the informant,
whereupon, proceedings under Section
107/116 was drawn between the parties.
However,
he
has
stated
that
this
proceeding commenced after the incident
of murder. He has also stated that not a
single person among the assailants chased
them. He has stated that the miscreants had
opened fire 4-5 times on the spot. He
could not see the direction of the faces of
the assailants at the time firing was done.
However, he has stated in his crossexamination on page 25 of the paper book
that after two and a half hours of the
incident, he again arrived on the spot and
saw his father; and after seeing his father,
informant again went to the 'chari' field
and did not weep and cry.

(23) Apart from above factual
aspects, no other testimony has come
forth. Now, so far as the testimony of
P.W.1 Heera Lal in his examination-inchief and the lodging of the FIR is
concerned then there is no whisper about
the fact that the informant ever tried to
revisit the spot- the place where his father
was lying after the occurrence. However, it
has emerged only on page no.25 of the
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
paper book in cross-examination that he
revisited the place of occurrence two and a
half hours after the occurrence. But no
details of his reaction afterwards have
been furnished.

(24) Now, the conduct of the
informant- being son of the deceased- is
highly improbable and unnatural to the
magnitude that he was not far away from
the dead body after the occurrence where
he hid himself in a 'chari' field and the next
morning after the incident (occurred), he
did not think it proper to revisit the spot
where his father was lying dead. Instead he
went straight back to village and from
there proceeded towards the police station.
Here also, after reaching his village he did
not strive to revisit the spot of occurrence
along with the villagers and there prevails
abysmal silence on this particular conduct
of the informant as to how revisit to the
spot under these circumstances was
deferred till the arrival of the police on the
spot after the report was lodged at the
police station. Thus, the conduct of the
informant is in itself highly improbable
and does not sound and falls inline with
that of a ordinary, reasonable and prudent
man and cannot be accepted to be natural
conduct as such.

(25)

Next,
under
these
circumstances, the very conduct of the
informant- the sole eye-witness- becomes
improbable
and
unnatural
and
his
testimony
requires
independent
corroboration,
which
independent
corroboration is woefully lacking in this
case. The only other eye-witness is stated
to be another person- Natthu- who was
admittedly there, but he was not examined
by the prosecution but withheld as a
prosecution witness. The reason assigned
for his non- examination is suggested to be
fear of the accused. But his nonexamination erodes the reality of the
prosecution
story
substantially.
This
witness (P.W.1) appears to be highly
motivated in ensuring false conviction of
each of the accused.

(26) Had the incident taken place in
the manner and style suggested by the
informant himself, then the natural and the
proper conduct/reaction would have been
that as soon as after the incident had
occurred and when all the four assailants
had fled away from the scene towards the
western side the informant along with
Natthu had also secured their escape from
the
scene
of
occurrence
and
hid
themselves in a 'chari' field then they had
every occasion and reason to have arrived
on the spot soon after (the incident) in
order to ascertain the condition well being
of the deceased- Bheemsen, who was lying
on the spot but no such gesture was shown
by the informant. Not only this, in the next
morning, there was ample occasion for the
informant to have ascertained proper
condition of the deceased in the day light,
but that too was not done. We may
observe that these aspects create doubt on
the veracity and truthful version of
testimony of P.W.1.

(27) Lastly, when the informant
reached at his village, he did not strive to
come back to the spot and to take stock of
the situation. This disinterestedness of the
informant in not revisiting the spot after
the occurrence generates doubt about the
manner and the style of the occurrence that
it so occurred and does not inspire
confidence and the withholding of the
independent witness- Natthu- works fatally
to the genuineness and veracity of the
prosecution
case.
Consequently,
we
unhesitatingly hold that the eye-witness
2 All. Peeru & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
733
Heera Lal P.W.1 is not trustworthy and his
testimony is inconsistent with his natural
conduct after the occurrence had taken
place. Here we can safely observe that
Heera Lal P.W.1 appears to be an
interested
witness
and
under
these
circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that the argument extended by the
learned counsel for the appellant carries
substance and the same is worth its
credence.

(28) On aforesaid vital aspects and
particularly
the
withholding
of
the
independent witness and more so in the
event
of
non-corroboration
of
the
testimony of P.W.1 Heera Lal in the
prevailing facts and circumstances of the
case, the trial court misjudged the situation
and wrongly appraised the facts, vis-a-vis,
circumstances of the case and arrived at
wrong conclusion by convicting the
accused for charge under Section 302/34
IPC, which finding of conviction and
sentence cannot be sustained for the
specific reasons aforesaid and the same is
liable to be set aside.

(29) Consequently, the judgment
and order of conviction dated dated
13.05.1992 passed by IV Additional
Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in Sessions
Trial No.276 of 1991 (State Vs. Chet
Ram and others), arising out of case
crime
no.258/1990,
under
Sections
302/34 IPC, Police Station- Subhash
Nagar, District- Bareilly is hereby set
aside
and
the
appeal
is
allowed.
Accused-appellants are acquitted of all
charges as above.

(30) In this case, the accusedappellants are on bail. They need not
surrender in this case. Their bail bonds
are
cancelled
and
sureties
are
discharged. However, they shall furnish
surety bonds in compliance with Section
437-A Cr.P.C.

(31) Let a copy of this order be
certified to the concerned trial court for its
intimation and follow up action.
----------
(2020)02ILR A733

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH-I, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 1985

Peeru & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.A. Gulani, Sri Abhishek Ahuja, Sri
M.J. Akhtar

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. Criminal Law-Indian Penal CodeSections 147, 148, 149 and 326 - Appeal
against conviction.

The statements of these two witnesses were
found to be in corroboration with the statement
of doctors PW2 and PW4. The genuineness of
the medical examination report of the two
injured have been admitted from the side of
the
accused
and
therefore
no
detailed
examination-in-chief has been recorded of this
witness. (Para 19)

The injury memos which have been proved by
doctor, show that injured person had suffered
as many as 14 injuries on his person which
were caused to him by acid. Another injured
person was also injured in this case, has
suffered as many as nine acid injuries. The
other doctor which has been examined from