2007 Supreme(All) 1693

[2007(7) ADJ 24 (NOC)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : R.C. DEEPAK AND VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
STATE OF U.P. ............Appellant
Versus
RAM MILAN AND OTHERS .........Respondents
(Government Appeal Nos. 2425 and 2426 of 1981, decided on 25th May, 2007)

Headnote:(A) (Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 147, 148 and 307/149—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 161, 162 and 172(2)—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 145—Attempt to murder—Acquittal—Sustainability of—Victim sustained serious injuries and had become unconscious as accused fired on him—I.O. proved charge-sheet and other papers—Injured eye-witness has fully supported incident—Other witnesses supported testimony of injured eye-witness—Same has been fully corroborated by medical evidence—Motive found as to previous enmity—Finding of trial Court perverse and unsustainable—If due to fear of country made pistols and lathis—Witnesses did not make any effort to save injured witness from assault of accused—Their testimony cannot be discarded on this ground—Order of acquittal set aside.

       (B) Evidence Act, 1872—Section 145—Cross-examination—As to previous statement—When reduced into writing and if it is proved—To be used for purpose of contradicting him.

       (C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 172(2)—Case diary—Use of—There is embargo for criminal Courts to use as evidence.

       (D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 161 and 162(2)—Statement—Use of—No Criminal Court can use statement of witness recorded under Section 161 of CrPC as substantive evidence—Such statement can only be used for contradicting witness. Appeals Allowed.