AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 230 wordsNanavati, J.—Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6233 of 1983 and Criminal MP No. ... (application for discharging the advocate from the matter) are dismissed.
The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1989 are challenging their conviction and the order of sentence passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in ST No. 138/69 of 1978/81 and confirmed by the High Court. Writ Petition No. 543 of 1992 is filed by accused Ramayan Singh whose SLP was earlier dismissed by this Court.
The appellants have been convicted on the basis of the evidence of 2 eyewitnesses PW Amila Devi and PW 3 Bhagwani Devi. Both these witnesses have been believed by the trial court and also by the High Court. No good reason is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant for taking a different view as regards the credibility of these 2 witnesses. We do not find any infirmity in their evidence. Merely because they happened to be sister and mother respectively of the deceased their evidence cannot be discarded. In absence of any infirmity either in the appreciation of their evidence or in the reasons given by the courts below we see no reason to interfere in this appeal and the writ petition. Both are, therefore, dismissed. The appellants in criminal appeal are directed to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.
