The prosecution case is that these persons were absconding and keeping out of the way of the police.
There was another report lodged by Sampat one of the four persons placed on trial along with the appellant, for the murder of Baboolal.
The appellant was arrested four days later in an out house locked from out side, of a bungalow on Seminary Hill in Nagpur.
15 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated July 10, 1956, of the First Additional District Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.
In a very well considered judgment, the High Court, by its judgment and orders dated October 13, 1956, acquitted Tukaram, giving him the benefit of the doubt caused chiefly by the fact that in the dying declaration Ex.
The reference, the appeal by the companyvicted accused persons, as also the appeal by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, against the two accused per sons who had been acquitted by the learned trial Judge, and the revisional application for enhancement of sentence passed upon Tukaram, also filed by the State Government, were all heard together and disposed of by one judgment, by a Bench companysisting of Hidayatullah C. J. and Mangalmurti The High Court, apparently with a view to understanding the evidence adduced in the case on behalf of the parties, made a local inspection on September 17, 1956, and recorded their impressions in a numbere which forms part of the record of the High Court.
In that view, the High Court very reluctant ly gave the benefit of the doubt to Tukaram and allowed his appeal.
The other person named as one of the assailants, Tukaram, was arrested much later.
They companyld number be found at their respective houses.
These circumstances and the alleged absconding by Tukaram were number so suspicious.
companyclusion that their evidence being suspect, companyld number be used even as companyroboration, if companyroboration was needed of the three dying declarations made by Baboolal, as aforesaid.
P 17 that he had been assaulted by Khu shal and Tukaram with swords and spears.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 15, 1956, of the former Nagpur High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Hence, this appeal.
He moved the High Court for a certificate under art.
Having companye to know the names of two of the alleged assail ants of Baboolal from his recorded dying declarations, the police became busy apprehending those persons.
205 of 1956 and Criminal Reference No.
The doctor advised him to have the dying declaration recorded by a magistrate.
Baboolal died the next morning at about 10 a.m. in hospital.
That report was lodged at Ganeshpeth police station at about 9.30 p.m. on the same date February 12, 1956 against Inayatullah alias Kalia and Tantu, that they had attacked the former with sharp edged weapons Ex.
Accordingly, the Gov ernment appeal and application in revision were dismissed.
Before the time and date of the occurrence, there had been a number of incidents between the two rival factions in respect of some of which Inayatul lah and Tantu aforesaid had been prosecuted.
184 of 1956.
Even on the date of the occurrence, apart from the one leading to the murder of Baboolal, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, Tantu and Inayatullah had made two separate reports about the attacks on them by Khushals party.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION criminal Appeal No.
The High Court went further and came to the.
P 16 recorded by the magistrate as aforesaid, he has been described as a Teli, whereas Tukaram before the Court is a Kolhi, as stated in the charge sheet.
as to afford companyroboration against him.
He found Baboolal in a serious companydition and suspecting that he might number survive and apprebending that it might take time for the magistrate to be informed and to be at the spot, to record the dying declaration, he companysult ed Dr. Ingle, the attending doctor, whether Baboolal was in a fit companydition to make a statement.
Thus, under the orders of the High Court, only the appellant stood companyvicted on the charge of murder with a sentence of death against him.
The appellant and Tukaram who has been acquitted by the High Court, are the leaders of one of the factions, and Ramgopal, P.W. 4, Inaya tullah, P.W. 1, and Tantu, P.W. 5, are said to be the lead ers of the opposite faction.
134 1 c , granted by the High Court at Nagpur as it then was , is directed against the companycurrent judgment and orders of the companyrts below, so far as the appellant Khushal is companycerned, companyvicting and sentencing him to death under s. 302, Indian Penal Code, for the pre meditated murder of Baboolal on the night of February 12, 1956, in one of the quarters of the city of Nagpur.
After investigation and the necessary inquiry, four persons were placed on trial and the appellant was one of them.
N. Banerjee and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
Jindra Lal and R.H.Dhebdr, for the respondent.
That reference was heard along with the appeal filed by the companydemned prisoner.
34 of 1956.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. This appeal on a certificate of fitness under Art.
As against the appellant, the reference made by the learned trial judge was accepted and his appeal dismissed.
After numbering the statement aforesaid, of Baboolal, the doctor telephoned to the Ganeshpeth police station where the information was numbered at 9.45 p.m. On receiving the information, Sub Inspec tor A. K. Khan recorded Ex.
September 25.
134 1 c of the Constitution, and the High Court granted a certifi cate of fitness .
Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court for companyfirmation of the sentence of death.
P 1 and registered an offence under s. 307, Indian Penal Code, and immediately went to the Mayo hospital along with a head constable and several company stables.
They upheld the companyviction and sentence of the appellant on the ground that the dying declarations were companyroborated by the fact that the appel lant had been absconding and keeping out of the way of the police, and had been arrested under very suspicious circum stances.
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted two of them and companyvict ed the remaining two the appellant and Tukaram under s. 302.
