In addition, a substantive charge was framed Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent.
It appears that Vinod Kumar occupied a barsati above a shop cum flat in Sector 18D, Chandigarh along with Ram Lok.
The case of the prosecution is that on March 1, 1974 at about 4.30 in the afternoon the two accused went up to the barsati and while Karam Singh caught hold of Vinod Kumar the respondent stabbed him with a knife in the abdomen.
The learned Sessions Judge recorded evidence in the case and after companysidering the material before him he held that it was number sufficient to establish the charges beyond doubt against the accused, and he acquitted them.
The appellant, the Chandigarh Administration, applied to the High Court for leave to appeal, but the application was summarily dismissed.
Against that order this Court granted special leave to appeal companyfined to the case against the respondent, Dharam Singh.
The respondent and his brother and their family lived on the floor immediately below the barsati.
The motive suggested by the prosecution is that the accused suspected that Vinod Kumar was carrying on an illicit relationship with their sister Ajit Kaur.
The respondent, Dharam Singh and his father, Karam Singh were charged for an offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Vinod Kumar.
S. Pathak, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana declining leave to the appellant under Sub section 3 of Section 378 of the CrPC to appeal to the High Court against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh acquitting the respondent.
