But, according to the medical evidence, injuries on PW2 were caused on the evening previous to the morning of June 24. This takes away the basis on which he was accepted by the trial court and the High Court as an eyewitness notwithstanding his proclivity to mix up falsehood with truth. A substantial part of the prosecution story has been disbelieved and the conviction of the appellant rests solely on the testimony of PW2 who, as observed by the trial court, does not seem to have particular respect for truth and had mixed up falsehood with truth. His credibility as an eye witness lay only in that the trial court and the High Court assumed that he had received injuries in the same occurrence in which the deceased was killed. That assumption does not appear to be very sound and is not borne out by the evidences on record. The defence plea that PW2 had received the injuries on the evening of June, 23 and not in the morning of June, 24 gains credence from the fact that an incident between the two sides had admittedly taken place on the evening of June 23, 1995. In the face of this admitted position and the medical evidence, it is difficult to accept that the injuries found on the person of PW2 were received by him in the morning of June 24. From this, either of two inferences would logically follow one, PW2 was not present at the occurrence in which the deceased was killed in the morning. The occurrence in which the deceased was killed did not take place in the morning of June, 24 and he was not killed in the manner as suggested by the prosecution. Both the inferences are equally damaging to the prosecution case. In view of the facts and the circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to uphold and sustain the appellant’s conviction for the offence of murder, and the prudent and safe course would be to give him the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the charges u/s 302 and 324 I.P.C. The next appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 201 of 1996, confirming the appellant’s conviction under section 302 of the penal code and life imprisonment. In the statement before the police he said that in the morning he along with his two younger brothers, (PW-6) and the deceased was sitting on the chabutra of their baithak in their village, when deceased proceeded for his house to bring the clothes for getting ready to go to Faridpur where he was due to appear in the B.A. examination. As he reached the chaupal, where the lane turned, he was waylaid by the accused and his friend armed with knives. As to the cause of the said incident he further stated that shortly before the occurrence his younger brother was elected as the village Sarpanch. He did not pay any heed to the unreasonable demands of the accused and this greatly annoyed them as they thought of themselves as the Chaudhary of the village. This had led to an altercation and an exchange of hot words between the two sides on the previous evening but the matter was then patched up by discussion. He finally stated that the accused in league with one another had killed his brother by giving him knife and lathi blows. After the occurrence he brought his friend to the civil hospital, Kanpur where he was declared ‘brought dead’. Dr. Kumar (PW-3) who was in the hospital on duty sent information in that regard to the S.H.O., P.S. whereupon PW-8 came to the hospital and took down the statement of the appellant. The F.I.R. was delivered at the residence of the area Magistrate on the same day. What is, however, of significance for our purpose is that the trial court disbelieved a substantial part of the prosecution story. The trial court did not accept the prosecution case that accused were present at the place of occurrence and, accordingly, directed their acquittal. As regards, the trial court pointed out that the three incised wounds on the person of the deceased that were attributed to him were, according to the medical evidence, post-mortem in nature, that is to say, those three injuries were inflicted after he was already dead. The medical evidence, thus, clearly eliminated the participation of his friend in the case. He too was, therefore, acquitted. The acquittal of the three accused brought down the number of the remaining accused for the shared common intention with the appellant. Apparently, that was one of the reasons for their conviction simply under Section 323 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
