2010 Supreme(All) 3694
[2010(10) ADJ 15 (DB)(NOC)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : IMTIYAZ MURTAZA AND ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, JJ.
CHHABI RAJ RAM ....Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
STATE OF U.P. ....Opposite Party
(Criminal Capital Appeal No. 975 of 2009, decided on 20th October, 2010)
Advocates:
Counsel :
Bhanu Pratap Singh for the Appellant; A.G.A. for the Opposite Party.
Headnote:(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/307—Arms Act, 1959—Section 4/25—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 27—Murder—Attempt to murder—Death penalty—Reference for—Court below placing credence of testimony of child witness—Which further according to impugned judgment, received corrobration from recovery of weapon used in commission of crime on pointing out of appellant—In present case, motive assumes greater significance particularly—When conviction recorded on basis of testimony of a child witness—Motive attributed to appellant for commission of offence is not so powerful as to imbe him with impulsion to commit offence—Nothing on record to show that even after arrest of appellant—Child witness divulged name of appellant as her assailant—Testimony of child witness tutored—It is liable to be discarded—Recovery of weapon of crime on pointing out appellant—But, serologist report is inconclusive—Because, blood was found to have disintegrated at tenderd with circumstance—Statement of accused regarding concealment i.e. weapon of crime, which admissible under Section 27 of Act—Was not put to accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.—This circumstance too has got no probative value—Impugned judgment unsustainable—Reference rejected. Appeal Allowed.
Back
