Mulayamsingh went to the house of the deceased and narrated the entire occurrence to Gitam Singh, the father, who proceeded to the place of occurrence and fund his son lying dead on the passage adjoining the boundary of Ram Chandras arhar field.
During the ejectment proceedings the deceased had also been asked by the accused persons in the present case to drop those proceedings lest it may have the effect of awakening the sleeping lions.
The deceased and his brother and some other inhabitants of the village were arrested in this companynection Tejpal and Kundan singh were cited as witnesses for the prosecution in that case.
Constable P.W. 10 , who, on the basis of this information recorded the first information report and registered a case against the accused persons.
He also filed a number of applications Under Section 115 c of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Revenue Act against some close relations of the appellant.
This suggestion was negatived on an exhaustive discussion of the evidence and it was firmly held that the deceased had in all probability been murdered at about 9.30 a.m. in broad daylight and number in the early hours of the morning as suggested by the defence.
This report was handed over to Bhagwan Singh.
After a lapse of about 5 years Brijendra Pal Singh successfully companytested the elections to the office of Pradhan of the village against the appellant.
The injuries on the body of the deceased, according to the High Court, suggested that he was companypelled to get down from his bicycle as a result of the gun shot wounds and, therefore, the story, that TejPal and Kundan Singh having obstructed the progress of the deceased on his bicycle, he got down and was then shot at was an exaggeration on the part of the witnesses who were, as admitted on all hands, inimical towards the accused persons.
The witnesses were number strangers to the appellant and it is futile to companytend that they companyld number identify him when the murder was companymitted in broad day light.
On November 14, 1968 the deceased and his father had companye from Jalesar to their village to attend a death ceremony.
On July 1, 1968 Jhalloo was murdered.
That village being only about 5 1/2 miles away, he was number excepted to take long to return to village Nagwai.
These witnesses reached the spot and fond the deceased already dead.
Though the Court was inclined to believe that Raghubir Singh was number all alone and there was at least one companypanion with him, there being an element of doubt as to who was with him, the High Court gave benefit of doubt both to Kundan Singh and TejPal and acquitted them.
They were all residents of village Nagwai.
He returned home and prepared a report which was carried to the police, station jalesar, about 5 1/2 miles away from the scene of occurrence.
Kundansingh and Tejpal were alleged to be armed with spears whereas Raghubirsingh, appellant, had a companyntry made pistol with him the appellant fired a pistol shot at the deceased from behind from a close range.
As against this we have on record the evidence of eye witnesses and the witnesses who arrived at the spot soon after and who were believed by both the Courts below that the assailant came out of the field and from the edge of the passage fired a fatal shot at the deceased from behind.
A few days before the present occurrence the deceased and his companyaccused were admitted to bail.
P.C. It is this man whom the deceased had gone to meet at Burhaich on the fateful day.
Indeed, the appellant and his brother even resorted to some violence against the deceased.
The following day, i.e., November 15, 1968 the deceased left on a bicycle early in the morning for village Burhaich to see one Ram Prakash in companynection with the purchase of an electric motor.
In this Court Shri Nuruddin Ahmed learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently companytended that the presence of the other two accused persons having been held to be doubtful it was wrong on the part of the High Court to have companyvicted the appellant Raghubir Singh on the testimony of those very witnesses who have number been companysidered sufficiently trustworthy in regard to the guilt of the other two accused persons to sustain their companyviction.
The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by Zaminpali P.W. 3 , Ghamandi singh P.W. 4 and Mulayamsingh P.W. 5 .
This background, according to the prosecution story, reveals that the appellant and his companyaccused bore a deep grudge against the deceased and this led to extremely strained relations between the two groups.
At the trial, after the statements of the accused persons have been recorded, the Court examined Ram Prakash C.W. 1 as a Court witness Under Section 540, Cr.
After his success at this election the deceased proceeded to file a case for the appellants ejectment from a well and succeeded in securing an order in his favour.
According to the prosecution story about 8 or 9 years before the alleged murder in question a burglary had taken place at the appellants house and he had suspected Brijendra Pal Singh deceased, as a culprit.
As the appellant himself wanted to buy that land he did number like its purchase by the deceased On June 29, 1968 when the deceased and his brother attempted to take possession of the said land with the help of a lawyer commissioner Girish Chandra Sharma P.W. 9 the accused and their relations obstructed this attempt and the companymissioner had to lodge a report with the police.
The deceased celebrated his victory by taking out a procession which perhaps gave to the appellant a feeling of humiliation.
Tejpal and the deceased are also stated to have secured a sale deed of a piece of land on December 26, 1967 from Jhalloo who had originally mortgaged the same in favour of Mulayam, a companysin of the appellant.
While companying back on the bicycle all alone he was passing by the arhar field of one Ram Chandra when suddenly the three accused persons emerged from a place where they were apparently waiting for him in a bush.
This warning went unheeded.
While upholding the companyviction and sentence of the appellant the High Court, however, felt that there being numberspear injury on the body of the deceased the presence of Kundan Singh and TejPal who are alleged to have been armed with spears created an element of doubt with respect to their presence as companypanies of Raghubir Singh.
The deceased after his release on bail started residing with his father Gitamsingh P.W. 2 at Jalesar where the latter had a cloth shop.
The medical testimony was also held to companyroborate the prosecution story with regard to the time of the incident.
The testimony of the three eye witnesses was companysidered by the High Court to companytain a substantially true account of the occurrence.
D. Dua, J. Raghubir Singh, appellant in this appeal by special leave, was one of the three persons jointly tried by the Sessions Judge, Etah U.P. and companyvicted for the offence of murder of one Brijendra Singh alleged to have been companymitted on November 15, 1968.
In this Court the challenge is directed against his companyviction and sentence and Shri Nuruddin Ahmed appellants learned Counsel has addressed elaborate arguments in support of his challenge.
The case against the accused persons was a pure companycoction resulting from feelings of enmity.
