Point of Law:
Thus, their statements in regard to those allegations were liable to be discarded. While deciding such a case, the Court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Sukhveer Singh, Amicus Curiae, for the appellants and Ms. Meena, learned AGA for the State.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.3.1996 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in ST No. 369 of 1992 arising out of Case Crime No. 16 of 1992 under Sections 302, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur Nagar, by which the accused-appellants namely Jagat Pal, Jhabboo @ Somnath and Prithvi Pal have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and three months imprisonment under Section 323 IPC with Rs. 500/- fine each and in default additional imprisonment of one month.

3. Vide order dated 22.11.2019 of this Court, criminal appeal has been abated in respect of appellant no. 3 namely Prithvi Pal on account of his death report.

4. Brief facts of this case is that the informant Putti Lal gave a written report on 9.1.1992 at 13:15 PM in respect of criminal incident dated 9.1.1992 at about 4:00 AM in mid night. Ramdhani, nephew of informant, was sleeping on the tube-well at the time of incident and next day in the morning, for a long time when he did not return, his mother asked the informant to go and see why Ramdhani has not come till now from the tube-well. At about 10:00 AM in the morning when the informant was going to the tube-well, on the way he heard the sound of groaning and crying from the tube-well of Ramlal Kushwaha. He went there and found there Ramlal Kushwaha lying on his cot and was groaning. He had incurred bleeding injuries on his mouth. He asked about it then he told that in the mid night at about 4:00 AM Jagat Pal Singh son of Babu Singh Thakur, Jhabboo @ Somnath son of Ved Prakash and Prithvi Pal son of Munni Lal Pasi of the village were assaulting Ramdhani on his tube-well. Hearing his cry, he challenged and cried out “who is there” and “I am coming.” Hearing his voice all the three accused persons after killing Ramdhani came to him and threatened him that if he told about it to anyone they would kill him. He said that they have committed a wrong thing by killing Ramdhani whereupon they started beating him by fist and hockey stick. The informant then went to the tube-well of Ramdhani and found that Ramdhani was lying dead below the cot. He told about it in the village and Bihari, Ramesh, Sanwari Lal, Rajkumar and other persons came on the tube-well and at the same time Ramlal s/o Murali, Ram Avatar and Brij Bihari also came and they said that they had also seen the incident. The informant Putti Lal (PW-1) along with Ramlal (PW-2) and Sanwari (PW-3) went to the police station and gave a written report. The offence was registered against the three accused persons namely Jagat Pal, Jhabboo @ Somnath and Prithvi Pal for the offence under Sections 302, 323 and 506 IPC and chik was prepared. The injured Ramlal was sent to hospital and he was medically examined on the injury letter of the police. The police went to the spot and the dead body was taken into possession and sealed. Inquest report was prepared, papers necessary for post-mortem were also prepared and the dead body was handed over to the police personnel to take the same to the District Hospital for post-mortem, where the post-mortem of the dead body was conducted.

5. The Investigating Officer went to the spot and recorded the statement of the witness, prepared spot map and after obtaining the post-mortem report and finding sufficient evidence against the accused persons, submitted charge sheet against them under the aforesaid sections. Charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/34, 323/34 and 506 IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. Nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of prosecution case. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under