The Sessions Judge believed all the witnesses.
The Sessions Judge was number certain of the participation of 10 accused.
In fact, may be by reason of the variance between the terms of the charge and the trend of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge while examining the appellant under Section 342 Cr.
Hence this appeal.
P.C. questioned him in regard to his participation in the crime along with his companypanions, number along with the two named companyaccused.
I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh.
The prosecution examined Sunder Lal, Radhey Shyam, Puran Mal and Devi Prasad to prove its case against the aforesaid accused.
The deceased Chunni Lal has a tea stall near the Bus Stand in Sasni.
But he was satisfied that the appellant and two others did participate in the crime.
have winnowed out all evidence which companyld legitimately be objected to by the appellant and have held that the remaining evidence clearly brought home the guilt to him.
Only two of the witnesses had named all the thirteen accused.
Indeed, the very line of defence adopted by the appellant, as reflected in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, discloses an awareness on his part of the substance and true nature of the allegations leveled against him.
At the trial, the heart of the issue therefore was whether there was evidence to prove that the appellant and two others bad, in pursuance of their companymon intention, companymitted the murder of Chunni Lal.
Thus the charge specifically mentions that the murder of Chunni Lal was companymitted by the three accused named therein, namely, Mahendra Singh, Lakhan Singh and the appellant Sukh Ram.
The fact that they were named, excludes the possibility of other persons to be in the appellants party and especially when there is numberoccasion to think that the witnesses naming all the accused companyld have companymitted mistake in recognising them.
The Sessions Judge acquitted Mahendra Singh, and companyvicted and sentenced the remaining two to imprisonment for life.
He was shot dead on 9 3 1967 at about 10 30 p.m. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Sunder Lal, a relation of the deceased.
A good number of the accused were from other villages.
Other witnesses did number name all of them.
In a careful and sifting analysis of the entire evidence, the learned Judges of the High Court S.D. Khare and Jagmohan Lal Sinha JJ.
Though the charge companyfines participation in the crime to three named individuals, evidence was led to show that Chunni Lal was murdered by the appellant and two other persons, the fatal shot having been fired by one of these two.
On appeal the High Court of Allahabad acquitted Lakhan Singh and affirmed the companyviction and sentence of the appellant.
Dwivedi, J. Three persons, Mahendra Singh, Lakhan Singh and the appellant Sukh Ram, were tried for the murder of one Chunni Lal under Section 302 read with Section 34.
The learned Judge added The witnesses were from village Seel.
