The judgment emphasizes the importance of trustworthy testimony, corroboration, and the presence of independent witnesses and expert evidence in criminal cases.

ORDER :

These appeals have been filed by the state challenging the impugned order of the High Court whereby the High Court dismissed criminal appeal No. 125/1987 which had been filed by the state to challenge the acquittal of 10 accused by the court of sessions and allowing criminal appeal No. 389/1987 filed by three accused Chandu, Budh Singh @ Buddhu and Jodh Singh wherein they had challenged their conviction and sentence by the court of sessions. In the sessions trial 13 accused were put on trial. Ten of them were acquitted. Their acquittal was subject matter of criminal appeal No. 125/1987 filed by the state. The aforesaid three accused were convicted. First two for offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and third-Jodh Singh for offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. Chandu and Budh Singh were directed to undergo life imprisonment besides fine of Rs. 1,000/- Jodh Singh was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-.

2. In these appeals neither serious challenge has been made nor on facts it could be made to the acquittal of 10 accused by the court of sessions as confirmed by the High Court by dismissing criminal appeal No. 125/1987. Thus the short question that requires for consideration is the state appeal challenging the acquittal by the High Court of the aforesaid three accused.

3. The incident in question took pace on 20.1.1984 in the afternoon at about 2.30 p.m. There were injuries on both sides. Six persons died from the complainant side and one from the accused side. The one who died from the accused side was wife of one of the accused Chandu. She was pregnant at the time of her death as a result of injuries received during the course of the incident in question. The FIR was lodged by PW1 Ayub Khan stating therein that the accused had gone to his field 'chidiya peer ka khet' for cutting mustard crop; when he and others found that the accused were putting the crop into the tractor of one Amar Singh, they resented and asked them not to do so which resulted in altercation; accused Chandu fired on deceased Dalmod, Amar Singh also fired a shot on Hakim, Jodh Singh fired at Sahid, Budh fired on Abdul and other accused persons inflicted injuries by pharsi and lathi on the members of the complainant party. The challan was submitted against 16 persons, 13 were committed to court of sessions, the remaining three were tried to juvenile court.

4. The court of sessions while acquitting the 10 accused, on appreciation of evidence, found various material discrepancies in the case of the prosecution and the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 19 witnesses were examined by prosecution out of them 10 were said to be the injured eyewitnesses besides another 11 eye-witnesses as well. The sessions court found that the case as stated in the testimony of the eye-witnesses and genesis of resulting in incident as stated in the FIR was not correct. It was found that the incident did not take place at the field of Ayub Khan but it took place in the field of accused party. It was further found that the accused were not trying to take away the mustard crop of the complainant but complainant party was trying to take away that crop of accused which resulted in the altercation and the free for all shooting incident. Even PW1 was not found reliable and trustworthy to large extent in so far as he implicated accused other than three who were convicted. In respect of three convicted accused also discrepancies were found in the testimony of PW1 but they were held as not material resulting in the order of their conviction by the trial court. That has been the thrust of argument of learned counsel for the state before us as well. It is contended that the trial court rightly relying upon the testimony of PW1 convicted Chandu, Budh Singh and Jodh Singh and their appeal was allowed by the High Court without properly appreciating the evidence and thus the impugned judgment is unsustainable in so far as three accused are concerned. I