JUDGMENT

1. In this appeal, the State impugns a judgment and order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 31.07.1997 in S.C. No. 207/1994.

2. The prosecution case was that Kuldeep (hereafter referred to as "the respondent") and Om Prakash lived in Bharthal Village, and were neighbours but not on good terms. It is alleged that the respondent's family used to throw garbage in front of Om Prakash's house which led to frequent quarrels. The prosecution alleged that a similar quarrel had occurred on 15.10.1988 at 06.00 am. On the same day, the respondent - at about 10.40 am - drove his three-wheeler scooter and hit Naresh Kumar (the son of Om Prakash), aged 10 years, which resulted in serious injuries. Naresh was rushed to the hospital and declared "Brought Dead". The prosecution alleged that the incident was witnessed by Laxmi Devi, sister of the deceased Naresh Kumar's father-Om Prakash, who deposed as PW-12, and Satish, brother of the deceased Naresh - who deposed as PW-11. The police had initially registered a First Information Report (FIR), alleging commission of offences under Section 279/304A IPC by the respondent. Om Prakash, the deceased's father was dissatisfied with this and moved higher authorities, which led to further investigations. PW-12 had initially recorded her police statement on 15.10.1988 - as also was the case with PW-11. Subsequently, her supplementary statement was recorded on 02.11.1988. PW 11's supplementary statement was recorded on 04.11.1988. In these circumstances, the Trial Court charged the respondent for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He stated that he was innocent and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution relied upon the testimony of 18 witnesses; primarily the eyewitness accounts of PW-11 and 12. After considering all the materials on record, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution could not bring home the respondent's guilt and accordingly acquitted him of the charges.

4. It is contended that the Trial Court committed an error in not appropriately appreciating the evidence of PW-12, who clearly deposed about the manner of the incident, which revealed a premeditation or at least knowledge that the act would result in grave injuries that would, in all likelihood, result in the death of Naresh. It was further submitted that the Trial Court was swayed by minor discrepancies in the evidence of PW-12, primarily, the difference in the two statements, but completely ignored the fact that the incident had not occurred in broad daylight and both the witnesses - PW-11 and 12 were uniform about how it occurred. There could have been no doubt that the respondent had an intention to kill the deceased out of spite, on account of his previous enmity with Om Prakash and he, therefore, utilized the opportunity when it presented itself to him.

5. Dealing with the testimony of Laxmi Devi, PW-12, the Trial Court noticed that in the initial statement, Ex. PW-12/A dated 15.10.1988, the witness had stated that the respondent was driving his three-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner. She had omitted any mention about the enmity between Om Prakash and the respondent, or even alleged that he had intentionally hit the deceased Naresh. Learned ASJ noticed that in the subsequent statement of 02.11.1988, the witness deposed that she was standing in front of the door along with PW-11, Satish, when the deceased was standing in front of the chaupal. Respondent allegedly drove his three-wheeler fast towards Naresh, who tried to save himself and moved towards Sada Ram's house. The respondent pursued him (Naresh), speeding his scooter behind him and hit him.

6. The Trial Court noticed the discrepancies between the earlier statement of PW-12 as well as what she deposed in Court; it also noticed the discrepancies in the statement of PW-11 and the inter se conflict between the two witnesses, who are alleged to have been present at the time of the occurrence. The Trial Court observed in th