Crl.A. No. 1268 of 2004 1

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1268  OF 2004

STATE OF RAJASTHAN ..  APPELLANT(S)

vs.

RAMESHWAR DAYAL & ANR. ..  RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. We find that the judgment of  acquittal recorded by  

the High Court is based on an appreciation of the evidence  

and  the  positive  finding  is  that  the  two  eye  witnesses  

P.Ws.  1  and  3  were  not  present.   For  arriving  at  this  

conclusion,  the  Court  has  minutely  gone  through  the  

evidence of these two eye witnesses and observed that the  

statement of P.W. 2 – Sandeep Kumar in fact belied the  

statements of P.Ws. 1 and 3.

3. We are of the opinion that as the High Court has  

taken  a  view  which  was  possible  on  the  evidence,  no  

interference is called for in this appeal against acquittal.

4. Dr. Manish Singhvi, the learned Additional Advocate

Crl.A. No. 1268 of 2004 2

General  for  the  State  has,  however,  argued  that  the  

discrepancies  pointed  out  by  the  High  Court  were  very  

insignificant and could not lead to the conclusion that the  

two eye witnesses were not telling the truth.  We, however,  

feel that the discrepancies pointed out by the High Court  

are  not  insignificant  and  go  to  the  very  root  of  the  

prosecution story.

5. We, accordingly, find that no interference is called  

for in this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of  

India.  Dismissed.

                   .......................J.          (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

                   .......................J.

                                (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD) New Delhi,

   October 06, 2010.