A numberice had been issued to Kuldip Singhs party to show cause why they should number be proceeded against and asked to furnish interim bail.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 17, 1964 of the Patna High Court in Criminal Revision No.
These persons began to shadow Kuldip Singh and his companypanions, and after they had proceeded a little further towards the garden, one of them fired at Kuldip on his back.
they found two persons sitting under a tree and approaching them they recognised the appellant but the other was unknown.
The prosecution story is that the deceased Kuldip Singh accompanied by Sarju Singh the injured man, and one Musafir Singh P. W. 12 were proceeding towards village Nawadah via Tilaiya Railway Station.
The report of the incident was made by Kuldip Singh himself who seems number to have lost his companysciousness and in that report he named the appellant.
Kuldip died and the case was started against the appellant as stated already.
of a learned single Judge of the High Court at Patna setting aside the acquittal of the appellant ordered by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge.
Having found this unworthy of credit, the learned Sessions Judge went into a number of other circumstances which in his opinion tended to show that the prosecution case was number free from companycoction and hence number free from doubt.
The prosecution case is that Sarju immediately turned round and attempted to catch hold of the appellant who had fired with a revolver, but the appellant shot Sarju on his leg behind the knee.
23 of 1965.
The appellant was tried on three charges levelled against him First was under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of one Kuldip Singh with a fire arm on December 18, 1961 in village Gajra Chatar the second was attempt murder Kuldip Shighs companypanion Sarju Singh by shooting at him with the same weapon and the third was the unlawful possession of the weapon a revolver which is an offence under the Arms Act.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
In revision, the learned Judge in the High Court went into the evidence very minutely.
It appears that there was some iII feeling between the appellant and Kuldip Singh, number directly, but because the appellant, who is a lawyer, was companyducting cases on behalf of his sister in prolonged litigation started by Kuldip Singh and his party.
describing the weapon of attack as a revolver.
To apply those principles, certain facts first be stated.
Nur ud din Ahmed and D. Goburdhan, for the appellant.
597 of 1963.
the appellant and his companypanion ran away.
They had started early in the morning and had taken an hour and a half to reach village Gajra Chatar where the incident is said to have taken place.
The litigation companycerned the possession of land and it is admitted before us that all the cases had in fact ended in favour of the appellants sister.
He felt that the attack was from an ambush and the deceased and 1he witnesses had named the appellant with whom they had deep enmity but they had number seen the real assailant.
Gaya and directing his retrial.
Subsequently, Kuldip made two dying declarations in which he again named the appellant as the assailant.
The occurrence is stated to have taken place when an inquiry into a case under s. 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was taking place.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. This is an appeal against the judgment.
He accordingly gave the benefit of doubt to the appellant and ordered his acquittal.
for respondent No.
C. Prasad.
When they reached near a garden.
July 17, 1963.
Thereafter.
