- (1.) APPELLANT State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1) Cr. RC. against the impugned judgment of ac quittal dated 13-01-1986 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1985, whereby respondent accused Jatan was acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) AS we are affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Court leading to the acquittal of respondent- accused Jatan, we deem it quite unnecessary to reproduce the details of the prosecution case, which are contained in the im pugned judgment and it would suffice to say that respondent-accused Jatan was put to trial on the accusation of having committed murder of one Jagan by causing injuries on his head region by means of a pick-axe (Gainti) in the noon of 15-11-1984. Respondent-accused Jatan ab jured his guilt and pleaded false impli cation. At the trial, the charge against the respondent-accused was sought to be proved on the evidence of PW1 Km. Guddi, PW2 Banarsi, PW3 Itwari, PW4 Mam Chand, PW5 Rakesh Kumar, PW6 R. C. Nautiyal, PW7 Fanni Singh, PW8 Ganga Saran, PW9 M. R. Thukral, PW10 Krishna Pal Singh.
(3.) OF these, PW1 Guddi, PW2 Banarsi and PW3 Itwari were examined as eyewitnesses of the incident, wherein deceased Jagan sustained injuries, lead ing to his instantaneous death on the spot, itself. The Trial Court, on a close scru tiny of the evidence led by the prosecu tion, found following infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses : i. PW3 Itwari was a pet police wit ness, as he appeared as a witness in a number of criminal cases of that police station. ii. PW2 Banarsi, who claimed to have witnessed the assault on de ceased Jagan while urinating could not have seen the incident as the place of occurrence was not visible from the place where he was urinating. iii. It was highly doubtful that PW1 Guddi, the daughter of deceased Jagan had actually seen the as sault on her father deceased Jagan, as the place where her fa ther deceased Jagan was sleeping on the cot was not visible from the varanda where this witness and her mother Smt. Vidya were sitting. iv. PW1 Guddi, neither in the First Information Report lodged by this witness nor in her evidence before the Court, spelt out any motive or immediate cause, which could have prompted respondent-ac cused Jatan to cause the death of deceased Jagan. v. Even according to the prosecu tion case, the assailant of de ceased Jagan did not bring any weapon with him. vi. Other important eye-witnesses i. e. Smt. Vidya (the widow of the de ceased), Bhola (brother of the de ceased) and Kamla (wife of Bhola) were neither examined by the prosecution nor any explana tion was offered for their non-ex-" amination. In view of the above-mentioned se rious infirmities found by the Trial Court in the evidence of the prosecution wit nesses, the Trial Court found it quite unsafe to act upon the prosecution evi dence and therefore, recorded the im pugned judgment of acquittal of re spondent-accused Jatan.;