Sethi, J. - (1.)Holding that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court on the basis of the findings given being totally erroneous and as a result of misreading the evidence, the High Court, vide the judgment impugned in this appeal, set aside the same and convicted the appellant for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302, IPC. Consequently, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The High Court found that there was no ground to disbelieve the testimony of five eye-witnesses and to ignore a number of independent circumstances which connected the accused with the commission of the crime.
(2.)Appearing for the appellant, Shri Y. P. Singh, learned Counsel (Amicus Curaie) submitted that as the view taken by the trial Court, while acquitting the accused, was a probable view, the High Court should not have interfered with by convicting and sentencing the appellant. It is contended that there being various omissions, improvements and contradictions in the statement of the eye-witnesses, no reliance should have been placed on their depositions. As the weapon of offence is stated to have not been sent for the examination of finger-print expert, it is argued that the accused could not be connected with the commission of the crime. It is further submitted that failure to produce the report of Serologist showed that the prosecution was withholding the same obviously perhaps it was not in its favour. Regarding the injury inflicted on the person of the deceased it is submitted that as the location of the injury, as described by the witnesses, is not the one found in the post-mortem report, it should be presumed that the eye-witnesses did not see the occurrernce.
(3.)To appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, it is necessary to note down the prosecution version of the occurrence. Deceased Kamlabai, a young woman of 21 years of age was living with the appellant as his mistress after her marital relations had been strained with her husband. On 30th June, 1985 at about 7 a.m., the appellant is stated to have come at the house of the parents of the deceased. Kamlabai was combing her hair in a room where the accused also entered. He had some altercation with Kamlabai whereafter he picked up a knife and stabbed her with the result she sustained a deep wound of cutting the vital inner parts of her body. When Sunderlal (PW3) tried to apprehend the accused, he was thrown on the ground and attempted to be given a knife blow in his neck. The witnesses who came on spot intervened and saved Sunderlal. The appellant fled away from the scene of occurrence. Jamnabai (PW2), mother of the deceased lodged the FIR whereafter the accused also reached the police station along with weapon of offence and was arrested there. To prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of Meenabai (PW1), sister of the deceased, Jamnabai (PW2), the mother of the deceased, Sunderlal (PW3), father of the deceased, Kamleshwar (PW4), brother of the deceased, and Mayabai (PW5), step-mother of the deceased.