on the application for certificate of fitness the two learned judges who had originally heard the appeal again differed mathur j. was in favour of refusing the certificate while gyanendra kumar j. was for granting it.
the spears were with aram singh and ram singh the gandasa with babu singh and the lathi with gajram singh.
he deduced this from the fact that sangram singh admitted to have gone on foot to behjoi to make his report and he rejected his explanation that he did so because the cycle had numberlight observing that sangram singh companyld have borrowed an electric torch or some other light.
and mathur j. was for dismissing the appeal while gyanendra kumar j. was for allowing it.
nur ud din ahmad and j. p. goyal for the appellants.
the prosecution examined 16 witnesses in support of the case.
in the report one umrao was also named but he was number examined as it was alleged that he had been won over by the defence.
he pointed out that as only one cycle was found at the spot and number the other sangram singh had number gone there on cycle.
appeal from the judgment and order dated august 21 1963 of the allahabad high companyrt in criminal appeals number.
all the accused applied for a certificate and in view of what had happened and as the companyviction of nanhu singh on a murder 1 1965 s.c.r.
bhagwati j speaking on behalf of imam and govinda menumber jj and himself said whatever may have been the misgivings of the learned chief justice in the matter of a full and fair trial number having been held we are of the opinion that he had numberjurisdiction to grant a certificate under article 134 1 c in a case where admittedly in his opinion the question involved was one of fact where in spite of a full and fair trial number having been vouchsafed to the appellant the question was merely one of a further 1 1956 s.c.r.
the learned judge was also companyvinced that there was a delay in the dispatch of the companyy of the first information report special report and the case diary and he was of the opinion that the first information did number accompany the requisition for postmortem examination sent to the doctor.
aram singh who had struck babu singh pradhan on the head and transfixed it with his spear from temple to temple and caused other injuries on vital organs was sentenced to death as also babu singh who had almost decapitated babu singh pradhan with gandasa.
the two judgments were then laid before takru j. who agreed with mathur j. in accepting the prosecution case.
he was returning to his own village alpur situated to the numberth east of behjoi at a distance of four miles when he was way laid felled from the cycle and fatally attacked by the appellants.
he was the principal eye witness in the case.
of the appellants babu singh and aram singh have been sentenced to death and gajram singh and ram singh to imprisonment for life.
the case was accordingly laid before us for disposal.
1 1 as eye witnesses.
consideration of the case of the appellant on facts.
he gave the time of the assault as 6 p.m. the first information report also mentioned the name of man sukh w. 9 ved ram p.w.
their companyvictions were upheld by the high court and their sentences were maintained.
on the day of occurrence babu singh pradhan had gone on cycle to behjoi to negotiate for the purchase of a persian wheel.
two witnesses were examined by the companyrt and 4 witnesses were examined for the defence.
he had his cycle repaired by one amrik singh who was examined as a companyrt witness.
the report of the incident was made by his brother sangram singh at behjoi police station at 8.30 p.m. sangram singh claimed to have accompanied his brother to behjoi and to be in his companypany at the time of the assault.
charge was still subsisting a companymon certificate was granted to all of them.
the charge against them was that they had murdered one babu singh pradhan at village behjoi on october 11 1961.
the sessions judge moradabad accepted the evidence of enmity and also of the eye witnesses and companyvicting the appellants under s. 302/34 indian penal companye sentenced them as above.
the pradhan was attacked by the appellants with spears gandasa and lathi.
me other two appellants were given the lesser punishment because they had played a minumber part.
what had happened in the case of nanhu singh may number be stated from the judgment of this court by a curious misreading of the evidence this nanhu singh was mixed up with bechan singh.
instead of that they acquitted bechan singh and companyvicted nanhu singh.
all accused appealed to the high companyrt.
mathur j. companycurred with all the conclusions of the sessions judge gyanendra kumar j. differed because he disbelieved that sangram singh had accompanied his brother.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 179 of 1964.
the appeal was heard in the high companyrt by d. s. mathur and gyanendra kumar jj.
what the high companyrt really meant to do was to convict bechan singh and acquit nanhu singh.
one of the accused ramu singh had passed a decree against ved ram as a sarpanch and this was accepted to be the probable motive for his false testimony.
as soon as the learned high companyrt judges realised their mistake they companymunicated with the state government and an order was thereupon passed by that government remitting the sentence mistakenly passed on nanhu and directing that he be released.
when this appeal came on for hearing before a divisional bench the state raised the companytention that the certificate granted by the high companyrt was incompetent in view of the settled view of this companyrt in haripada dey v. the state of west bengal and anr.
he disbelieved ved ram because he had earlier spoken of lathi blows and numberinjuries caused by a lathi were detected at the postmortem examination.
on appeal to the high companyrt five more were acquitted and that left nar singh roshan singh and one nanhu singh.
was number accepted when no reasons were given and that the certificate in haripada deys 1 case was also bad because the reasons were number sound.
the points of difference were a whether the first information report was made on october 11 1961 at 8.30 p.m. or much later b whether the offence took place at 6 p.m. or later when there was numberlight to identify the assailants and c whether the eye witnesses were at all present at the scene and or were reliable.
2271 and 2272 of 1962.
p. rana for the respondent.
he observed that if sangram was present at the scene he too would have been slain and the statement that he was pedalling 14 or 15 paces behind the pradhan was number believable because cyclists generally ride abreast.
man sukh was number believed because he was a previous history sheeter.
134 1 c meant the case as a whole.
his reasons were that he need number have accompanied the pradhan and the shop keeper with whom the brothers were said to have dealt for the purchase of the persian wheel was number examined and amrik singh who repaired the cycle of the pradhan did number mention sangram singh.
4 and jia lal p.w.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this is an appeal by certificate against the judgment of the high companyrt of allahabad dated may 24 1963 by which the companyviction of and sentences passed on the four appellants under s. 302 read with s. 34 of the indian penal companye were companyfirmed.
the latter stated that the main point of difference earlier was over the authenticity of the first information report its time and date and takru j. had merely stated at the end of his order that if it was necessary for him to decide the point he would have agreed with mathur j. and would have accepted the first information report as genuine.
he was finally of the view that as no independent eyewitness was examined the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.
nanhu singh did number appeal and the appeal was filed by nar singh and roshan singh on the companymon certificate.
gyanendra kumar j. felt companysiderably aggrieved as it appears from his order that this matter which was fully argued before takru j. was number discussed by him in detail.
as a result of his decision the appeals were dismissed.
the motive for the attack was said to be some former quarrels between babu singh pradhan and father of babu singh the appellant and the action of the pradhan after his election in supporting on behalf of the gaon samaj proceedings for encroachment started against the fathers of the appellants sentenced to death.
jia lal who had stated that the occurrence took place at 7 p.m. and was consequently declared hostile by the prosecution was believed by the learned judge who came to the companyclusion that numberlight was available at that hour for proper identification.
