http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: P. KUNHALI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/04/1998

BENCH: G.T. NANAVATI, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J.      The appellant  was convicted  by the  trial  court  for causing death  of one  Sanjeevan. His  conviction was  based upon the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 who were accompanying t he deceased and P.W. 3 who had seen the deceased and P.Ws 1 and 2 going  together on the road. The trial court held that the evidence  of   P.Ws  1   and  2   deserved  to  be  accepted particularly when  it was  corroborated by  the evidence  of P.W. 3 who was an independent witness.      The High  Court on  reappreciation of the evidence also came to  the conclusion  that the  evidence of  P.Ws 1 and 2 deserved to be accepted. The High Court has rightly observed that merely  because P.Ws  1 and  2  were the friends of the deceased  and possibly belonged to the same political party, their evidence  could not  have been discarded on the ground that they  were partisan  witnesses. The High Court was also right in  rejecting the  contention that  P.Ws 1 and 2 could not have  seen the  incident from  the place where they were standing when  knife blows  were given  to the deceased. The High Court  also rightly  rejected the  contention that  the prosecution had  changed the  place of incident as there was no substance  in it. It has given good reasons in support of its finding.  We see  no good  reason  to  differ  from  the findings recorded by the High Court.      It was lastly contended on behalf of the appellant that the High Court having disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 regarding  A.2 and  A.3 ,  ought not  to have  accepted it against A.1  also A.2 and A.3 were given benefit of doubt as there was  no clear  evidence regarding  the role  played by them when  the  deceased  was  given  knife  blows  by  A.1. Therefore, acquittal of A.2 and A.3 by the High Court cannot be of any help to A.1.      We, therefore,  see no  reason to  interfere  with  the judgment and  order passed by the High Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.