Vs. State of U.P  INSC 162 (16 March 1998)
Nanavati, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri Nanavati. J.
learned counsel for the parties. The appellant - Baij Nath has been convicted
under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC. It was alleged against him
that he had provoked his co-accused to kill Devi Charan.
perusing the evidence, we find that all the witnesses had made consistent
improvements regarding the role played by Baij Nath. In the FIR, the only role
alleged to have been played by him was that he had provided others to kill Devi
Charan. Before the court, all these witnesses stated that Baij Nath had also
given blows to Devi Charan.
was no other evidence against him except the evidence of those three witnesses
who, as stated above, had made material improvement regarding the role played
by Baij Nath.
was no corroborative evidence to show that Baij Nath was present at the time of
the incident. The courts below were therefore in error in convicting the
appellant for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with
Section 149 IPC.
are of the view that his presence at the time of the incident has not been
satisfactorily established, he deserves to be given benefit of doubt. We,
therefore, allow this appeal, set aside his conviction under Section 304 Part
II read with Section 149 IPC and acquit him of the charge levelled against him.
bail bonds are ordered to be cancelled.