- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the High Court of Bombay after setting aside an order of acquittal recorded in favour of the appellant by the Trial Court.
(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, on 14-7-1984, at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased Gautam, along with PW 3 Dinesh and PW 8 Baban went to the part shop of Rajesh Jaiswal to purchase bidis. Rajesh Jaiswal is the brother of the appellant. An altercation ensued on the demand of payment for the bidis. During the quarrel the deceased Gautam is alleged to have assaulted Dinesh Jaiswal, a cousin of the appellant, by giving him a knife blow on his thigh. The appellant is alleged to have gone to his house and come back with a blade of spear and assaulted the deceased by giving him a spear-blow on his chest. The deceased later on succumbed to the injury after he was removed first to the police station and then to the hospital by his brother and sister. It is also the prosecution case that the weapon of offence -- spear blade -- was recovered at the instance of the appellant on a statement made under S.27 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution, with a view to connect the appellant with the crime, examined as many as five eyewitnesses. The prosecution also relied upon evidence relating to the recovery of spear blade, the medical evidence and recovery of bloodstained clothes. The Trial Court, after a detailed discussion and critical analysis of the evidence found that the witnesses for the prosecution had given a "parrot-like version of the entire case" regarding assault on the deceased and had also "suppressed material facts of the case", besides making vital improvements in their version "in a systematic way". The Trial Court also opined that the origin of the fight, including the assault by Gautam and infliction of an injury to Dinesh Jaiswal with a knife had been suppressed by the prosecution witnesses. In the words of the Trial Court: "It appears that there was some scuffle between Sushil Jaiswal and Gautam Tambe and the accused and Dinesh Jaiswal went there and rescued them and they asked Gautam Tambe and others to leave that place but they did not leave that place. It also appears that thereafter Gautam Tambe gave the knife-blow on the thigh of Dinesh Jaiswal. This fact is suppressed by all important eyewitnesses of the prosecution as is clear from sana entry at Ext. 46 and contradictions in the testimony of Manoj, PW 1 and other witnesses...." The Trial Court while disbelieving the evidence of recovery of weapon of offence noticed: "There is discrepancy in the description of the blade of the spear as mentioned in the seizure panchnama at Ext. 25 to that of the evidence of Dr Satish Kumar Gupta, PW 14. There is nothing on the record to explain the discrepancy in the length and breadth of the blade of the spear which was seized by PI Shukla, PW 12 and which was examined by Dr Satish Kumar Gupta, PW 14."
(3.) AFTER recording these findings amongst others, the Trial Court found that the prosecution evidence was not reliable and that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was accordingly acquitted.;