It was taken away from him by Jagir Singh Patwari, P.W. 4.
109 of 1951 arising out of Judgment and order dated 19th March 1951 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepore, in Sessions Trial No.
The appellant was immediately taken to the local police post about 100 karams distant and the shopkeeper Jit Singh, W. 2, made the first information report at 12 a7 p.m. within 15 minutes of the occurrence.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 4th June, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature of Punjab at Simla Bhandari and Soni JJ.
It was said that makes his evidence in the Sessions Court inadmissible.
No attack was made on the testimony of Balbir Singh, W. 5, except that the two eye witnesses who resiled in the Sessions Court companytradict him.
This attracted the attention of a number of bystanders who immediately chased the appellant and apprehended him after a short run of about 30 karams.
When he came out of jail the police thought it prudent to take proceedings against both sides under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The prosecution story is that the appellant bore a grudge against the deceased because the deceased had fired at the appellants brother some six or seven years before the present occurrence and was sent to jail for it.
The remaining two, Balbir Singh P.W. 5 and Jaswant Singh P.W. 6 have been believed.
This resulted in the appel lants two brothers and his companysins being bound down, as also the deceased.
On the date of the occurrence, the 7th of September 1950, the prosecution state that the appellant was sitting at the shop of Jit Singh, P.W. 2, when the deceased came there about 12 15 p.m. and borrowed Rs.
This, it is said, companystituted the motive for the present crime.
When the deceased left the shop he was followed by the appellant who shot him at point blank range with a pistol only 4 or 5 karams from the shop.
The appellant Bhagwan Singh has been companyvicted of the murder of one Buggar Singh and sentenced to death.
He has also been companyvicted under section 19 f of the Indian Arms Act but we are number companycerned with that here.
18 of 1951.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The motive is proved by Bhag Singh, P.W. 7, who has been believed and that part of the case was number challenged before us.
The occurrence was witnessed by a large number of persons of whom the prosecution examined only five.
12 of 1952.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J. This is a simple case though it was argued at great length on behalf of the appellant and a number of technical objections to the validity of the trial taken.
April 30.
5 from Jit Singh who lent him the money and entered the transaction in his ac companynt book.
in Criminal Appeal No.
Gopal Singh, for the respondent.
R. Bhasin, for the appellant.
The only questions are 1 whether the companyviction can be rested on their testimony and 2 whether certain irregularities in the trial vitiate it.
He was still carrying the pistol.
