IMPORTANT POINT
To discard evidence of a witness on ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.

ORDER

Arijit Pasayat, J.-The State of Uttar Pradesh in this appeal questioned the legality of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which set aside the conviction of the accused-respondent under Section 302, 376 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short IPC ). The Trial Court had found the accused guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for the first offence, and seven years and five years for the other two offences respectively. High Court, in appeal, reversed the judgment of the Trial Court and directed acquittal.

2. Background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

Complainant Brij Lal (PW-1) was father of the deceased aged about 10 years. On 26.12.1978, at about noon, the deceased went to the Kolhu of Rajendra Singh father of the accused, in order to chew sugarcane. She was seen chewing the sugarcane at the Kolhu by the witnesses. She, however, did not return home. The complainant (PW-1) searched for her, but she could not be found. He was told by the witnesses that deceased was seen chewing sugarcane at the Kolhu of the accused and later on she was seen going with the accused towards his sugarcane field. The complainant and some other witnesses went the next day to the sugarcane field of accused Devendra Singh in order to search for the deceased in the said field. The accused did not permit the complainant to have a look at the said sugarcane field. Thereafter, the complainant took the pardhan of the village with him as well as other persons and all of them searched for the deceased in the sugarcane field of the accused. During the search, some portion of the field towards the south was found to be freshly dug. The complainant and others dug the said place and the dead body of the deceased was found buried there. The complainant asked the other persons present there to have a watch over the dead body and he himself went to the police station to lodge the report. The complainant lodged the report at P.S. Bilgram at 7.10 p.m. on 27.12.1978. On the basis of the information, investigation was undertaken. On completion of investigation charge sheet was placed. The accused persons pleaded innocence and faced trial.

3. Prosecution examined primarily three witnesses to substantiate its accusations. They are PWs 2 and 3 who claimed to have seen the accused in the company of the deceased just prior to the occurrence, and PW-4 who claimed to be an eyewitnesses. He stated to have seen the accused throttling the deceased. The High Court found that the evidence of PW-4 did not inspire confidence. His conduct was unnatural. It was accepted that he had not disclosed about his having seen the occurrence for about three days. The High Court also noticed that the said witness at one place had admitted that he had not seen the occurrence but during his examination later on the next day again stated that he had seen the occurrence, in this background the witness was held to be unreliable. High Court held that there was no other material to link the accused with the alleged crime.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. Merely because PW-4 who was at the relevant time about 16 years of age, and has given reasons as to why he did not disclose having seen the throttling for about three days that should not have been held sufficient to wipe out his credible evidence. He is an illiterate boy belonging to a very backward place and was a farm labourer. Therefore, the High Court should not have held that his conduct was not unnatural. It was pointed out that there is no record to show that he had admitted not to have seen the occurrence. It appears to be an error of record. Further the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 and the fact that the dead body was found in the field of the accused, who prevented people to go into the field initially are circumstances which unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accu