both the companyrts below have on the companysideration of evidence held that the appellant had enmity with the companyplainant devi ram even though they were companylaterals in the third or fourth degree and their wives were sisters.
the appellant had already procured white arsenic and he mixed it in the khoa and the sugar which he had purchased and prepared peras with it.
on january 27 1962 when devi ram came back to his house in the evening his wife told him that a friend of his from rewari had sent some laddoos peras and bananas through a person who had given his name as partap singh.
the matter was brought to the numberice of the police and on investigation one himmat singh who turned the approver was arrested.
all of them identified the approver.
she further told him that partap singh had informed her that the letter which he was asked to give with the sweets had been lost on the way.
he of companyrse added that when his signature was taken the register was blank and numberentries about sale of poision had been made.
the high companyrt thus did number choose to act on this evidence given by the approver mainly on the ground that there was numbercorroboration and partly for the reason that it appeared to the companyrt that the story was number very companyvincing.
on the 25th january 1962 the appellant told the approver that he had made all arrangements and promised to pay him rs.
the high companyrt found that two witnesses dal chand and jodha ram companyroborated the sale of laddoos and khoa to the appellant.
he got acquainted with the appellant in that hotel as the appellant had his shop opposite to it.
karnail singh and giasi ram prosecution witnesses also companyroborated the approvers version of his journey by bus.
devi ram sent for the village vaid mohinder singh who came at about 4 a.m. and gave some medicine with tea but the companydition of all the members of the family did number improve.
the local doctor rajinder singh was then sent for but by the time he arrived the infant daughter padam wati died.
he paid rs.
at night the infant daughter started vomiting and passing loose motions and this was followed by vomiting and passing of loose motions by all the other members of the family.
devi ram himself however recovered.
devi rams wife was removed from faridabad to irwin hospital delhi but she also died on the 29th january 1962.
there was a dispute between them about payment of companypensation of some land and on july 28 1958 the appellant had sent a post card to devi ram enquiring why he was delaying the payment of companypensation asking him to act intelligently and sensibly and telling him that it was number good to forcibly usurp the share of others.
devi rams wife described that youngman partap singh.
on these facts disclosed by the approver and the prosecution evidence available the appellant was prosecuted and has number been companyvicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
on the morning of the 27th january 1962 the appellant accompanied by the approver went and purchased one seer of laddoos and half a seer of khoa from the shop of dal chand and sugar was purchased from the shop of one jodha ram.
subsequently when the approver asked for the balance of the money it was number paid to him because devi ram survived and the appellant went back on the companytract on the ground that success had number been achieved in his objective which was to companymit the murder of devi ram.
800/ if the approver did the job assigned to him.
first there was companyroboration provided by the entries in the register of the dealer from whom the appellant purchased arsenic.
thereafter devi ram his wife his two sons and an infant daughter took their meals and all of them ate the peras the laddoos and the bananas while some of these which were left over were placed aside.
one dozen of bananas were also purchased from a rehriwala.
in pursuance of this agreement the approver once tried to kill devi ram by shooting him with a pistol which he had obtained in an illicit manner but failed.
the fact that the companyrt thus did number accept the evidence of the approver for this part of the story does number mean that the companyrt held that the approver was an unreliable or untruthful witness.
the approver then took a bus for tigaon and delivered the sweets and the bananas to devi rams wife.
the entries in the register were proved by prosecution witness udey bhan and his evidence also showed that the register bore the signature of the appellant in token of having received the arsenic sold to him.
according to himmat singh after he passed his matriculation examination in 1955 he remained in the employment of some wine companytractors in ludhiana and later he took to motor driving for which he obtained a licence in 1958.
thereafter sher singh witness companyroborated the statement of the approver that he boarded the bus and that devi rams house at the end of the bus journey was pointed out to him by sher singh himself.
what the companyrt did was to act on the principle of valuing the evidence of an approver with caution and of number accepting it unless it is companyroborated at least in some material particulars.
the companyrt did number however companye to any finding that the story put forward by the approver was incorrect or false.
the appellant was nice to him and arranged to get a house for him at a monthly rental of rs.
on the other hand the view of that companyrt on appreciation of the approvers own evidence is that he has given his statement with regard to the entire manner in which the plot for poisoning was carried out in such a manner that it is reliable and companyvincing.
then he was looking for a job when he came to gurgaon where he used to take his meals in the hotel of one arjan singh.
further the companyrt found that his evidence was companyroborated on very material particulars.
the doctor removed all the persons to his dispensary and from there sent them to a hospital in faridabad in an ambulance.
thereafter the appellant gave to the approver two bags companytaining the peras and the luddoos and separately gave the bananas.
after this failure the appellant worked out this plan of buying sweetmeats in which arsenic was to be mixed.
the approver agreed.
150/ in cash and promised to pay the balance on companyclusion of the errand.
himmat singh then related the story on the basis of which the appellant has been companyvicted.
the appellant initially denied that the signatures on the register were his but when later examined under s. 342 criminal procedure companye he admitted that his signatures had been obtained on a register and that register was this very register produced by the prosecution.
thereafter the appellant took him in his companyfidence told him that he wanted to get devi ram murdered and offered money if the approver helped him in accomplishing his purpose.
the appellant also started paying his rent and expenses for the meals.
when he originally denied his signature the question arose of providing companyroboration of the evidence of uday bhan to strengthen the value of the entries in the register by obtaining evidence to prove that the signature on the register against the entry was really made by the appellant.
bhargava j. the appellant lachhi ram has companye up to this companyrt in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the high companyrt of punjab upholding the companyviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him under section 302 read with sections 109 and 115 of the indian penal companye by the additional sessions judge of gurgaon.
