As a result, this appeal number companyes up for final disposal.
From the judgment of the 1st Class Magistrate which is on the record before us it is seen that P. W. 19 and P. W. 24 Gian Chand and Resham Singh were examined before him, but there is numberhing to show that P. W. 20 Labh Singh and P. w. 23 Ujagar Singh were so examined in that case.
The matter was reported to the other members of the Panchayat, where upon Gian Chand Sarpanch P. W. 19 , Resham Singh P. W. 24 and Ujagar Singh P. W. 23 went to the shop of Labh Singh and questioned the appellant suspecting that the mare was stolen.
His statement was that he was arrested by the Police at the house of his maternal uncle in companynection with some other murder case and was sent to the Judicial Lock up at Ferozepore after being detained at Jalalabad for 3 or 4 days.
Information was given to the Sub Inspector of Muktsar on 15th September regarding the arrest of the accused who had already been sent up to the judicial lock up.
According to the learned companynsel for the appellant, P. WS.
The father of the deceased made a report at the Police Station Muktsar where the companyplaint was recorded at 6 a.m., the next day.
The institution of the proceedings under Section 19 f of the Arms Act was on 30th January 1956, whereas the companymittal proceedings relating to the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code etc.,
At about 5 p.m., on 14th September the appellant, riding a mare without a saddle came to the shop of Labh Singh P. W. 20 in the village of Ghanga Kalan and asked the witness to prepare some food for him.
As stated already, since special leave is limited to the question adverted to at the beginning of this judgment, the credibility or otherwise of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution cannot be gone into at this stage, for the reason that under Article 136 of the Constitution, ordinarily this companyrt will number entertain an appeal on facts.
P.W. 26, Pritam Singh, who investigated the case of murder, apparently did number examine these witnesses.
The companymitment proceedings ended on 3rd April 1956, though the first witness for the prosecution had been examined on 3rd December 1955.
The further evidence is that of P. W. 14 who had seen the appellant at about 2 p.m. on 12th September 1955, riding the mare which had been lent to the deceased that day.
It was further proved in the case by the evidence of Kalia P.W. 10 and Bhag Singh P. W. 11 that on the evening of the disappearance of Mukhtiar Singh they had seen the appellant drinking liquor in a field near Nand Garh and they had also been invited to join the drink.
In appeal to the High Court of Punjab, along with the Reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the death sentence was companyfirmed, with a slight modification regarding the sentence under the minor charges.
As result of enquiries so made, charge sheets were filed against the accused before the Court of the 1st Class Magistrate of Muktsar by the respective Police officers.
Late that night, his body was found on the boundary of a field within the area of Nand Garh, evidently having been murdered and the mare was missing.
Such being the case, if the statements recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police of Jalalabad regarding the companyfession to the Panchayat and the circumstances under which the accused was apprehended were available to the defence, cross examination would have elicited discrepancies which would brand them as untrustworthy.
An appeal against the companyviction under Section 19 f of the Arms Act was pending before the Additional Sessions Judge of Ferozepore when the murder trial companymenced.
It wag the same Magistrate Sri I. P. Anand, 1st Class Magistrate, Muktsar who companyvicted the appellant of the offence under the Arms Act on 16 3 1956, and who passed the order of companymittal on 3 4 1956, and as such it is clear that in the Committing Court the entire records of the investigation by the Sub Inspector, Jalalabad, were available at the time of the enquiry.
On 12th December 1955, Mukhtiar Singh deceased, borrowed a mare from Wazir Singh P. W. 5 for the purpose of going to Lakhewali Mandi and rode that animal.
On this the appellant tried to pull something out from the fold of his trousers but was prevented from doing any harm and was seized.
A companyntry made pistol, P. 16, for firing twelve bore shot gun cartridges together with four live cartridges were then taken from him who thereafter companyfessed that he had stolen the mare after shooting a Mazhabi of Nand Garh.
At the time of granting leave there was a direction that the statements of witnesses examined under Section 161 by the Sub Inspector of Police of Jalalabad should be called for and made available at the time of the hearing and this has been companyplied with by companyies of such statements having been placed before us, and what we have to decide is whether, granting that these statements were number made available to the defence at the time of the hearing in the Sessions Court when these witnesses were called by the prosecution, there has been an infraction of any rule of law and procedure and even if that is so, whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused which cannot be cured by Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
407 of 1956.
During the companyrse of the investigation of the case of murder by the Sub Inspector of Muktsar the cartridge recovered near the place where the dead body was found was sent along with the pistol seized from the accused for examination and the opinion of Dr. D. N. Goyal P.W. 3 was to the effect that the cartridge recovered at the spot was fired from that pistol.
19, 20, 23 and 24 were, to use a companymon expression, stock witnesses put up by the prosecution to speak to facts and circumstances which they did number actually witness but were merely persons who would be made to depose whatever the police wanted to be put on record.
It does number appear that any application whatever was made on behalf of the appellant during the Sessions trial for the supply of the companyies of the statements of the witnesses recorded in the Arms Act case, although the records of that case must have been before the companyrt at the time of the trial, since the Sessions Judge disposed of the appeal against the companyviction in the Arms Act case simultaneously with companyvicting the appellant of the offence of murder, i. e., both were disposed of on 1 8 1956, by the same Sessions Judge.
The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced him to the extreme penalty of the law on 1st August 1956.
Pritam Singh P. W. 26 , who was the Station House Officer, Muktsar, at that time, took up the investigation and proceeded to the spot where he found near the body a bottle, companytaining a small quantity of liquor and a spent cartridge.
At about that time a Panchayat was being held in the village of Ghanga Kalan and the Sarpanch and the members of the Panchayat had assembled.
There were parallel investigations by Diwan Chand P.W. 25 and Pritam Singh P. W. 26 regarding the cases registered in their respective Police Stations.
Govinda Menon, J. Special leave limited to the question whether the statements taken from the witnesses under s. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in the companyrse of investigation in the companynected case under the Arms Act, should number have been supplied to the accused for the purpose of his defence in the trial and whether the result of the trial has been materially affected thereby, was granted by this Court on 19th November 1956, in the petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated 26th September 1956, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
were begun by the examination of P. W. 1, Dr. M. L. Sethi, on 3rd December 1955.
The fact of the capture of the accused was thereafter recorded in the Panchayat records and the witness took the appellant to the Police Station of Jalalabad where the report of P.W. 19 Gian Chand was recorded and a case registered against the accused under Section 19 f of the Arms Act at 8 30 p.m. on 14th September 1956.
The appellant denied his guilt throughout and stated that the prosecution story was false, including the circumstances under which he was arrested and produced at the Police Station of Jalalabad.
Ujagar Singh P.W. 23 was on his way to the house of Gian Chand Sarpanch P. W. 19 for attending the meeting of the village Panchayat when he saw the appellant sitting outside the shop of Labh Singh holding the reins of the mare at which he became suspicious at the presence of a stranger in the village in such circumstances.
