LAW FOR ALL

occurrence and the manner in which the three persons on the prosecution side were killed are not in dispute. Hence, the only question that requires consideration by the Court is in regard to the identification of the respondents as the accused.= acquitted all the 14 accused (respondents in the present appeal) all of whom were found guilty of rioting and arson and committing murder of three people by the trial court and 8 of whom were awarded the death penalty while the remaining 6 were given the punishment of life imprisonment. = The prosecution examined five eye witnesses in support of its case. Brij Pal Singh (PW.1) is the Informant. He is the father of Manju @ Manoj and brother of Amar Singh, two of the three persons killed in the occurrence. In the examination-in-chief he fully supported the prosecution case and named all the fourteen respondents as the accused. The High Court, however, points out that he did not assign any role or attribute any weapon to any of the fourteen accused. In cross-examination he stated that he saw his son, Manju, being caught by the accused and being taken towards west. He was taken near the house of Awadhesh Nai where he was assaulted with a lathi as a result of which he fell down and then he was shot. He followed his son as he was caught by the accused and was being taken towards the house of Awadhesh Nai and he saw him being shot from a distance of about 2-3 steps. The High Court points out that though claiming to be a witness of his son being shot from such close distance, he evaded the question as to who were the actual accused who had caught him, assaulted him with lathi or shot at him. Further, in his statement before the police he had said that as the accused set fire to his chappar he fled away in a certain direction. From the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer it appeared that from the direction in which PW.1 had ran away it wouldn’t be possible to see the spot where Manju was allegedly shot. PW.1, of course, denied having made any such statement before the Investigating Officer, but the I.O. confirmed that he had said so in his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. Ashok Kumar (PW.2) is the son of Ram Chander, the third person killed in the occurrence. The High Court has pointed out a number of anomalies in his deposition before the court. Further, with reference to his statement made under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure there appears to be a clear attempt on his part to improve the prosecution case and to try to implicate more and more persons as accused. 15. Jagbir (PW.3) is the nephew of Brij Pal Singh (PW.1) and son of the deceased Amar Singh. In his examination-in-chief he supported the prosecution case and named all the accused without assigning to any one of them any specific role. The High Court has pointed out that his statements made in the cross- examination are equally riddled with inconsistencies and also show an effort to improve the prosecution case from stage to stage. 16. Awadhesh (PW.4) was not named as a witness in the FIR. He also appears to support the prosecution case but on a closer scrutiny of his deposition, the High Court has pointed out a number of discrepancies. 17. Bhurey (PW.5) is one of the injured witnesses. He has named the respondents as the accused but at the same time he said that some of the miscreants were covering their faces. He was unable to disclose how and at whose hands he himself received the injuries.- The High Court has examined the prosecution witnesses in considerable detail and has observed that in the background of the long and very hostile enmity between the two sides and the witnesses being highly interested, it would not be safe to rest the respondents’ conviction on their evidences. 19. On going through the judgments of the trial court and the High Court and the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, we are unable to hold that the view taken by the High Court is unreasonable or implausible. We are satisfied that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is warranted with the judgment of the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.