IMPORTANT POINT
The expression chance witness is borrowed from countries where every one considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence else were or in another man’s castle it is almost unsuitable expression in a country like India where people are less formal and more casual.

JUDGMENT

Chinnappa Reddy, J. - Rana Parrap, Manmohan alias Pappi and Sat pal were tried by the learned Session Judge Karnal-Manmohan for an offence under section 302 Indian Penal code and Rana partap and sat Pal for an offence under section 302 read with section 34 Indian penal Section Code. They were acquitted by the learned Session judge, but on appeal by the State the order of acquittal was reversed and they were convicted under section 34 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They have preferred this appeal under the Supreme Court Enlargment of jurisdiction (Criminal) Act.

2. Shri A. N. Mulla and Shri Kohli learned Counsel for the appellant read to us in extenso the evidence of all the material witness as also the judgment of the learned Session Judge and the High Court. They also addressed to us elaborate arguments. We are satisfied that the High Court did not overstep the bond of their jurisdiction or side-step the principal to be observed in dealing with appeals against orders of acquittal. We are also satisfied that the learned Session judge was patently in error in acquitting the accused and that he entertained doubts where none existed. The High court was quite right in reversing the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge as wholly unreasonable. Shri Mulla repeated all the points upon which the learned Sessions Judge relied to reject the case of the prosecution. Everyone of these points is so trivial that neither singly nor cumulatively can they be considered sufficient to discard the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. We consider that it would be a vain exercise in futility to ostentatiouslu consider each one of these inconsequential contentions only to reject them out of hand. We may however, mention a ground or two to illustrate the superficial approach and the unreal appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge.

3. There were three eye witnesses. One was the brother of the deceased and the other two were a milk vendor of a neighbouring village, who was carrying milk to the dairy and a vegetable and fruit hawker, who was pushing his laden cart along the road. The learned Sessions Judge and the learned counsel described both the independent witnesses as ‘chance witnesses’ implying thereby that their evidence was suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. We do not understand the expression ‘chance witnesses’. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere ‘chance witnesses’ is borrowed from countries where every man’s home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. The discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are ‘chance witnesses’, even where murder is committed in a street, is to abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence.

4. Another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge to discard the evidence of the milk vendor was that he did not produce the receipt for payment of octroi duty for bringing the milk into the town and that he also admitted that the business was being carried on in the name of his father. The reasoning is so ridiculous as to make further comment unnecessary. What is worse is that even the evidence of the witnesses examined by the accused shows that octroi duty was paid that day in the name of the father, thus virtually corroborating the evidence of the witness.

5. The evidence of the vegetable and fruit hawker was rejected on the ground that he admitte