The first information report was found by the Sessions Judge number to be a truthful statement inspite of the fact that Hazura Singh repudiated having of his own accord made the first information report.
Parties went to eat at the house of Hara Singh and returned at about 11 P.M. At about 5 A.M. on 11 September, 1967 the appellant is alleged to have murdered his brother Bharpur Singh.
By Nihal Kaur Hazura Singh had two sons, the deceased Bharpur Singh and Mangal Singh and a daughter.
The prosecution case was as follows Gurdit Singh and Hazura Singh, Hazura Singh married twice.
Hara Singh is alleged to have been informed about the incident by Hazura Singh.
Thereafter Narinder Kaur, the mother of the appellant died.
Hara Singh was disbelieved.
The family lived at a place called Gholia Khurd and cultivated land.
The Sessions Judge found the untruthfulness of Nihal Kaur and Harmit Kaur who claimed to have been present at the time of the occurrence.
Hazura Singh had also land at Jalalabad.
There was a first information report Exhibit P. 3.
The land at Jalalbad was given on Batai.
By the other wife Narinder Kaur Hazura Singh had one son the appellant and four daughters.
There was some dispute.
Hazura Singh remained at Gholia Khurd.
The High Court held that the Sessions Judge erred in number taking into companysideration the statement and directed retrial.
The appellant started drinking.
Three years before the date of occurrence which was 11 September, 1967 Nihal Kaur with her son Bharpur Singh and his wife Harmit Kaur and her other son Mangal Singh shifted to Jalalabad.
Hazura Singh went to Jalalabad with the intention of shifting to that place.
Harmit Kaur made an application under Section 439 of the CrPC and asked for retrial on the ground that the Sessions Judge had number taken into companysideration the statement of Hazura Singh made under Section 164 of the CrPC.
The trial companyrt found that Hazura Singhs evidence was unacceptable and he was number a truthful witness and he had asked his brother Hara Singh number to give truthful evidence.
The appellant quarrelled with his father Hazura Singh.
Hazura Singh was found to have been won over.
The murder was alleged to have been seen by Nihal Kaur, Harmit Kaur and Hazura Singh.
On 10 September, 1967 Hazura Singh, Nihal Kaur and the deceased and his wife Harmit Kaur went to Gholia Khurd in order to pack the luggage of Hazura Singh.
The Sessions Judge disbelieved Nihal Kaur and Harmit Kaur in regard to their evidence and came to the companyclusion that they were number present.
The High Court passed the order on a revision application under Section 489 of the CrPC made by Harmit Kaur widow of the deceased Bharpur Singh.
N. Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment dated 20 March, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana setting aside the acquittal of the appellant.
