STATE OF U.P v. SATVEER & Ors.

#2. ·According to PW2, he was sitting on a bench in front of the clinic of a doctor with 'V' when he saw the deceased being led inside the baithak by the E respondents. Apart from his own testimony, nothing was placed on record by the prosecution wh_ich could lend corroboration to his own presence and the content of his version. First, no reason was given why PW-2 and 'V' were sitting on the bench outside the_ clinic of the F doctor. Neither the doctor nor 'V' were examined. Beyond the testimony of the witness himself there was nothing to indicate whether PW2 was actually there at the relevanttime or not. Secondly, the place from where G he allegedly witnessed the occurrence was not a natural place where either the witness resides or carries on any vocation. The reason for his being there was not placed on record. Again the reason for his contir:iuing to be there for 20-25 minutes was also not spelt out. Thirdly, H none from the house of the deceased was examined nor 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 8 S.C.R. A did PW1 throw any light as to when the deceased left the house and in whose company was he playing. Neither has the prosecution given the names of those children nor has anybody else been examined to say that he had seen· the children playing at the place in B question. Fourthly, there was nothing to indicate how far was the house of the deceased and whether that was the normal place where the deceased would always be playing. Lastly, ifthe incident created chaos in the village so much so that the villagers went and thrashed the respondents, there was no reason why none of them was examined. [Para 12] [317-B-G] C

#3. It is doubtful whether PW2 could be called a natural and truthful witness and could be completely relied upon. D The movements of the deceased are also not established to show that he was actually there as suggested by the witness. The assessment of the entire material has left many doubts and questions unanswered. Two facts, that the baithak was of ownership of the respondents E and .that the body of the deceased was found there, . though very crucial, cannot by themselves be sufficient to fix the liability. The baithak was not part of the house, was across the road and apparently accessible to others. And importantly, presence of respondents-whether F some or all of them, was not fully established. [Para 13] [318-B-E]

#4. The respondents were apprehended the same day when one of them i.e. respondent 'Sa' was allegedly G . found to be in possession of blood stained dharati or sickle. According to the prosecution, the weapon was blood stained and was kept in the folds of dhoti by said 'Sa'. However, no such blood stained dhoti of 'Sa' was recovered. For that matter no blood stained clothes were H recovered from any of the respondents though they were supposed to be authors of the crime which left body of STATE OF U.P. Y. SATVEER & ORS. 309 the deceased in a pool of blood. Even the blood stains A. found on the cemented portion from Chamunda Math, though of human origin, were quite disintegrated as per FSL examination. The material on record definitely fell short and the respondents are entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 14, 15] [318-F-H; 319-C] B