AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 2959 ::2009 AIR SCW 4726 ::2009 (5) AIR Kant HCR 384 ::2009 (5) AIR Kar R 384 ::(2009) 3 CurCriR 498 ::(2009) 3 AllCriR 2412 ::2009 (14) SCC 748 ::2010 (2) SCC (Cri) 236 ::(2009) 9 Scale 159 ::2009 (3) Crimes 230 ::(2009) 80 AllIndCas 233 (SC) ::2009 All MR(CRI) 3045 ::2009 (6) KantLJ 177

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Karnataka)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): V. S. Sirpurkar, R. M. Lodha , JJ

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.300— Murder - Acquittal - Appeal - Appreciation of evidence - Accused persons assaulted deceased with sickles - His friend, boy of 13-14 years, an eye-witness narrated entire incident in detail to his father - Fact that articles found in stomach of deceased by doctor did not match with statement of eye-witness as to taking of food by deceased and with time of death stated by eye-witness - And that there was delay in recording his statement - Said circumstances are insignificant in absence of possibility of said witness being influenced by any other person or police - Not sufficient to reject testimony of eye-witness which was found to be credible - Further it cannot also be rejected on ground of being interested witness. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3— (Para 14 15 16) (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.300— Murder - Appreciation of evidence - Two accused persons assaulted boy and cut his neck by sickles - Other two were holding hands and legs of deceased - Evidence of eye witness, friend of deceased who narrated incident in detail to his father found to be credible - Minor omissions in testimony of father in cross examination were insignificant - There was no opportunity to father of eye witness to conco....