(SHORT NOTE)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B.N. Katju and A.N. Dikshita, JJ.
State of U.P. -Appellant
versus
Dinesh Chand and others - Respondents
Government Appeal No. 793 of 1978
Decided on 14.4.1988
A.G.A. - For the Appellant.
K.K. Srivastava and S.S. Tewari, Advocates - For the Respondents.

IMPORTANT POINT
The gun, which is not automatic, does not eject the empty cartridge after the shot is fired.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 148 and 302 and Sections 147 and 302/149 Accused persons tried but acquitted of the charges - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - State preferred appeal against acquittal - P.W. 1 not present at spot and his testimony not at all credible - Testimony of P. W. 2 hardly inspired confidence - P.W. 3 profession police witness and his evidence deserved rejection-No credence in P.W. 9's testimony - Investigating Officer n-ever recorded P.W. 8's statement and his testimony deserved rejection-In view of P.W. 8's (Ballistic Expert's) evidence recovery of empty cartridge (Ex. 1) on the spot highly doubtful-Dying declaration (Ex. C-1) suffered from improbabilities and ran counter on very many points to the prosecution story -- Whether implicit reliance to be placed on such dying declaration? (No) - Effect – Acquittal fully justified and not liable to be interfered with.