The story of Manphool that both the brothers were going to the house of Ram Chander, their Siri, was number natural and probable.
4 and 5 are companylaterals of Manphool.
4 and 5 at the time and place of occurrence the trial Court entertained grave doubts.
The alleged eye witnesses who were three in number including Manphool did number make any attempt to follow and apprehend the respondent even after his gun became useless on the alleged separation of the phatti.
As to the presence of P. Ws.
Manphool pounced upon Bahal Singh to catch him and his gun but the latter fled away with it.
The phatti is Ext.
4 5 were agnatic relations of the deceased one of them a close one.
Two other persons Sheo Narain, P.W. 4 and Surja, P.W. 5 are said to have witnessed the occurrence.
The phatti fore end wrongly described as stock in the judgment of the High Court got separated from the barrel of the gun and came in the hands of Manphool.
Ram Sarup and Jagdish returned to the village on the 16th March.
When they reached near the shop of one Gobind Sunar number examined Bahal Singh was standing there armed with his single barrel gun.
Bahal Singh also returned a day later.
Injured Ram Sarup was taken to Civil Hospital, Hissar in a bullock cart where the party reached at about 10.00 p.m. The Doctor on duty found Ram Sarup dead and sent a Ruka to Police Station at 10.15 p.m. Sub Inspector Sis Ram, P.W. 11 received the Ruka at 12.30 A. M. on the 18th March, 1976 and reached the Hospital at 2.00 A. M. He recorded the statement of Manphool at 2.30 A. M. About an hour later, the formal First Information Report was recorded and a companyy of it reached the Illaka Magistrate in the town of Hissar at about 7.30 in the morning.
On the 15th of March, 1970 Ram Sarup the deceased, respondent Bahal Singh and Jagdish, P.W. 8, according to the prosecution case went to the Cattle fair at Hissar.
The reason given by them for being at the place of occurrence did number appear to be true to the trial Court.
Both were chance witnesses and their reasons for their presence at the place and time of occurrence were number credible.
On the 17th March, 1970 at about sunset time i.e. at about 6.30 p.m. Ram Sarup and his brother Manphool, P.W. 2, the prosecution case further runs, were going through a lane in the village to the house of one Ram Chander their Siri in cultivation who was number attending to their work for 3 or 4 days.
The latter lost Rs.
After charge sheet and companymitment the respondent was tried in the Court of Session under Section 302 of the Penal Code.
Rather, the torn clothes showed that there was a scuffle between the deceased and the assailant.
The story of apprehending the respondent on the 22nd March at Agroha turning and the seizure of the gun without the phatti, was number reliable.
If by companyncidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness.
In the instant case, P. Ws.
1,100/ .
The respondent is said to have been apprehended with his gun which was a licenced one at Agraha turning bus stand on the 22nd March, 1970 when Sis Ram the Sub Inspector was returning to Hissar from Adampur where he had gone for an investigation of another case.
Ram Sarup and Bahal Singh indulged in gambling.
Ignoring the minor and the filmsy criticisms of the prosecution evidence in the case out of those mentioned in the judgment of the trial Court, we shall advert to the principal and important reasons given therein.
P1 and the gun is Ext.
Ram Sarup fell down.
There was altercation between them because Bahal Singh wanted the return of the money lost by him.
No independent witness from around the place of occurrence was examined in support of the prosecution version of the occurrence.
On seeing the two brothers, he challenged Ram Sarup and fired a shot at him hitting him on his left thigh.
The gun also seems to have been fired on him from a very close range.
A pair of shoes was found at the place of occurrence and numberattempt was made to find out as to whose shoes they were.
