A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence of Ghanshyam and Dhir Singh but while companyfirming the companyviction of appellant Kehar Singh the High Court set aside the sentence and referred his case to the State Government under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Childrens Act, 1951 Act for short and pending the decision of the Government under Section 32 2 , Kehar Singh was directed to be kept in safe custody in Jail but he was neither to be treated as companyvict serving a sentence number under trial and the companyfinement was for safe custody only.
The appellant Kehar Singh with his brother Dhir Singh and father Ghanshyam and acquitted accused Hukam Singh were tried by the learned III Additional District Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, for having companymitted offences under Section 302/34 and Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Accused No.
1 Ghanshyam.
The remaining three accused including Kehar Singh were companyvicted for both the offences and with respect to the first offence each one of 10 them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and in respect of the second offence, rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The appellant, his father Ghanshyam and brother Dhir Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No.
All the three companyvicted accused moved an application to obtain Special Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
At the relevant time it is an admitted position that the appellant was aged 15 years and this is borne out by the endorsement made by the trial Court in the Court proceedings.
Hukam Singh had a table with him and each of the three companyaccused, including the present appellant, was armed with a lathi.
It is the prosecution case that all the four accused persons started belabouring Dhoom Singh.
Thereafter the matter came before us and after hearing the learned Counsel, Mr. R.K. Garg, for the petitioners and the learned Counsel Mr. Bharadwaj for the respondents, we granted leave to appellant Kehar Singh alone and rejected the Special Leave Petition of the other appellants.
There were some unsuccessful attempts at rapprochement between the parties.
Dhoom Singh fell on the ground and died on the spot.
Substantive sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
2 Dhir Singh is said to have given a lathi blow on the head after Dhoom Singh had fallen down.
2170 of 1976 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Hukam Singh was acquitted.
In rejected.
1 Ghanshyam Singh.
It is the prosecution case that on June 21, 1975, deceased Dhoom Singh, P.W. 2 Dharampal and one Chuttan, when they were on their way to Pir Ka Maidan, were intercepted by the acquitted accused Hukam Singh and the three companyaccused.
Special Leave is of Ghanshyam.
When the matter earlier came up before Beharul Islam and v. Balakrishna Eradi, JJ.,
a numberice was ordered to be issued limited to the question of the right of private defence claimed by the petitioners.
With the companysent of the parties we heard the appeal on merits.
P.W. 2 Dharam Pal intervened to rescue Dhoom Singh and in the process suffered a lathi blow at the hands of accused No.
Dhoom Singh apprehending danger td his life had sent an application on June 16, 1975, to the Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur, companyplaining that number only his life but the life of his son was in danger at the hands of Ghanshyam, Hukam Singh and others.
There was some civil dispute between the deceased Dhoom Singh and the father of the appellant, Kehar Singh.
A report was sent to the police station and after usual investigation the four accused hereinbefore mentioned were charge sheeted and tried and dealt with as mentioned above, The limited question before us is whether the participation by Kehar Singh is established to the satisfaction of the Court.
