Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: Ss. 378, 429 & 417

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 378, 429 & 417-Difference of opinion between two Judges on pure question of weight of evidence with reference to propriety of conviction-Opinion of Judge in favour of acquittal does not ipso facto constitute sufficient reason for giving benefit of doubt to accused-Third Judge not bound to agree with Judge favouring acquittal-Analogy of appeal under S. 417, held, inapt.   In re : Narsiah and others A I R 1959 Andhra Pradesh 313 ; Rajab Ali v. Crown P L D 1954 Sind 49 ; Empress v. Devi Singh 1886 A W N 275 ; Khetri v. State A I R 1952 Orissa 37 and In re : Ravipati Sitaramayya A I R 1953 Mad 61 not fol.   Empress v, Bundoo 1887 A W N 125 ref.   Witness-Interested witness-No inflexible rule that state ment of such witness can never be accepted without corroboration --Expression "interested witness" used in P L D 1960 S C 387 Implication-Mere relationship of witness with injured party does not make him interested witness in legal sense-Main consideration whether he had motive for falsely implicating accused.   Nazir v. The State P L D 1962 S C 269 considered.   Eye-witness-Statement contradicted by medical report-- Story not fitting in with injuries on person of deceased-Inference against witness. JUDGMENT   Khurdo son of Valio aged 35 years, Danglo son of Waryam, aged 25 years and Miran son of Saifdin, aged 35 years have been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sukkur of ofences punishable under section 302 read with section 34, P. P. C., and have been sentenced to death. Miran in addition has also been convicted of an offence, under section 19-E of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All these three appealed to this Court which also received the reference in regard to the confirmation of the death sentences passed by the Sessions Judge. Both these matters were heard by a Bench consisting of my brothers Khamisani and Raymond. JJ., and on difference of opinion between them the case has been laid before me under sections 378 and 429, Cr. P. C.   The parties in this case are, all Bangulanis by caste. Appellants Danglo and Miranare…