- (1.) DELAY condoned. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.
(2.) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1987 on June 28, 1990. The case of prosecution is that on July 11 1986 at about 6:30 p. m. while the deceased was returning after taking water from the tank the Respondent accused came from behind and gave a blow with 'falia' and went away P. W. 2 Ratan Singh, son of the deceased who is an eyewitness to the occurrence raised an alarm upon which P. W. 3 Vesta, P. W. 4 Nawal Singh, P. W. 5 Amar Singh and others came to the scene of occurrence where at Ratan Singh, P. W. 2 narrated that the accused came from behind and attacked the deceased. The deceased was taken to the hospital and was declared dead. The FIR was lodged at 9:30 p. m. on the same day. After investigation, the accused was apprehended and after all the witnesses were examined, the trial Court convicted the Respondent -accused for offence of murder under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the Respondent Hence this appeal.
(3.) THE question for consideration is whether the evidence of P. W. 2, a child eyewitness to the incident is consistent with the medical evidence ? The medical evidence indicates as under: Three incised wounds were found, viz., (1) oblique incised wound about 5" X 2" bond deep, bral spine present over antero -lateral aspect of left side neck upto nape of the neck, body, lamine and spine of the chakeal spine were cut; (2) incised wound about 1 " x 1'" deep upto mandible over left cheek and (3) incised wound about 2 1/2 " x 1/4" over posterolateral aspect of left side elbow joint, on dissection internal injury was found and spine lamina and vertebral body in almost completely set at like level of 7th cervical vertebral spine and is almost completely severed at this site. A reading of the medical evidence clearly indicates that three incised wounds were inflicted upon the deceased, one on the nape of the neck, another on the left side c4 mandible and third on the left side of the below joint. In other words, there are Three separate injuries inflicted upon the deceased, by three separate blows but PW 2 does not speak of the accused having inflicted those three injuries. Prosecution case is that the accused -Respondent had inflicted the injury one once and that too from behind. The single blow cannot cause three incised injuries of different dimensions at three different places. Under these circumstances, the High Court had not placed implicit reliance on the evidence of P. W. 2. If the evidence of P. W. 2 is excluded from consideration, we do not find any other evidence to support the prosecution case.;