Tejpal Singh Vs. Bhadar Singh and ors.

penal code - section 429--p.w. 3 chance witness--examined after four days--prosecution evidence not inspiring confidence--held, trial court rightly discarded evidence and give benefit of doubt to accused.;similar is the case with the evidence of pw 3. he, also, appears to be chance witness and his statement was recorded by the police after about four days. the witnesses produced by the prosecution do not inspire confidence and the learned lower court has not committed any illegality in discarding the evidence of these witnesses and giving benefit of doubt to the accused-respondents.;revision dismissed. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....the learned magistrate, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that no case against the accused-respondents has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he, therefore, acquitted the accused-respondents of the offence under section 429 i.p.g.3. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor and perused the order passed by the learned lower court and the statements of the witnesses produced by the counsel for the petitioner.4. after perusal of the evidence on record, i am of the opinion that the learned lower court has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated december 7, 1990, acquitting the accused- respondents. there is no evidence on record connecting the accused-respondents with the crime. the prosecution produced one alleged eye witness of the occurrence, viz., pw 2 moola ram, who, as per his statement, has seen the accused persons giving 'pindoli' to the she-buffalo. according to him, he had seen the accused-respondents doing so and narrated the incident to the complainant tejpalsingh, in the morning of the next day. though this witness has informed the complainant regarding this incident, but this does not find place in the f.i.r. lodged by the complainant-petitioner in the evening at about 4.00 p.m. this witness does not appear to be an eye witness of the occurrence and it appears that he is cooked-up witness and if he would have been a witness of the incident then his statement would have been recorded on the very day of the lodging of the f.i.r., but his statement was recorded after four days of the lodging of the f.i.r. he is a chance witness. similar is the case with the evidence of pw 3. he, also, appears to be chance witness and his statement was recorded by the police after about four days. the witnesses produced by the prosecution do not inspire confidence and the learned lower court has not committed any illegality in discarding the evidence of these witnesses and giving benefit of.....