AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 1029 ::1994 AIR SCW 1126 ::1993 (4) CurCriR 478 ::1994 SCC(Cri) 697 ::(1994) 1 AllCriLR 47 ::(1995) 1 EastCriC 581 ::1994 (1) SCC(Supp) 524 ::1994 SCC (Supp) 1 524 ::1993 JT (Supp) 171

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Punjab and Haryana)

Hon'ble Judge(s): K. Jayachandra Reddy, G. N. Ray , JJ

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— Chance witness - One of eye witnesses, son of deceased - He lodging F.I.R. immediately after occurrence giving all details of occurrence therein - He also mentioning names of other two eye-witnesses - All three villagers belonging to same village and giving reasons as to why they were in the town of occurrence - All three are not chance witnesses - It is common knowledge that villagers belonging to same village move together when they visit town. (Para 5) (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.300— Murder - Appreciation of evidence - Failure to examine independent witnesses belonging to town of occurrence - Occurrence taking place suddenly and people in nearby shops might not have seen actual attack and might have not known assailants since they belonged to another village - Further, evidence of eye witnesses having been found creditworthy non-examination of some persons does not affect prosecution case. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— (Para 6) (C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.45— Murder case - Expert evidence - Doctor conducting post-mortem, stating as to injuries on deceased being caused by firearms - Some pellets recovered from body ....