The prosecution story as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus:- 2.1 PW.5-Ramkali, PW.6-Mulchand along with their relative Pannalal (PW.8) and son-Ashok as well as grand- daughter Rani and two other villagers namely, Badri and Mahesh were going on a bullock cart to Mau from Ujhawal at around 8-9 a.m. 2.2
It is the prosecution case that Rameshwar (since deceased), appellant-Balaram, Uma Charan and Munna had come there after ten minutes of stopping of the cart, accused-Rameshwar fired the first shot and it hit Ashok in his chest.
However, Rameshwar (since deceased) was found guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and appellant- Balaram was found guilty for the commission of offences 3 punishable under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 307 of the IPC.
Shri Chandrachud submits that, on the basis of very same evidence, the learned Trial Judge has acquitted four accused persons.
Shri Pattabhiram, on the contrary, submits that the learned Trial Judge, by separating the chaff from the grain, has believed the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6- Mulchand on finding that their ocular testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence on record.
It is only in the case of the third category of witnesses which is partly reliable and partly unreliable that the Court faces the difficulty.
We find it difficult to accept the distinction drawn by the learned Trial Judge while believing the evidence of 7 PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand insofar as appellant- Balaram and Rameshwar (since deceased) are concerned.
We find that when the Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of PW.5-Ramkali and PW.6-Mulchand insofar as accused Uma Charan was concerned, it could not have applied a separate standard while considering the case of the present appellant-Balaram and Rameshwar (since deceased).
Case Title: BALARAM Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002300-002300 / 2009
