Mahabir Prasad was sitting at his door and Maya Prakash, Ram Nath and the deceased were also with him.
On that basis, the Trial Court acquitted the appellant.
The Trial Court disbelieved the theory of attending the feast by the deceased and others on the basis that the statement given by the witnesses that a written invitation was number received and one of the witnesses stated that Nai told the persons about the invitation.
It is against this order that this appeal has been filed.
In the Sessions Court, nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and several documents were also tendered in evidence.
However, later on Jagdish Narain was discharged while a charge was framed against Hari Shankar.
On the aforesaid allegation of murdering Jagdish Narain charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
The Trial Court held that the death of Jagdish Narain was due to gun injuries sustained by him on 25.5.1978 in front of the Bethak of Raja Beta in Nagla Tor and the factum of his murder, was number in dispute before him.
Father of Jagdish Narain did the pairvi in that case.
On seeing the assault they rushed towards the appellant and exclaimed Arvind Prakash what have you done, when the appellant ran towards the west into the behar and took to his heels and later on they found Jagdish Narain dead.
The matter was carried in appeal by State to the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court, after examining the matter fully and thoroughly, took a companytrary view and proceeded to companyvict the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
On 23rd May, 1978, after attending a feast at the house of Lakshmi Narain in Nagala Saledi, when Jagdish Narain, Mukesh and Krishna Murari were returning to their homes, the appellant was standing near the Pakhar tree in front of the Bethak of Raja Beta and he fired at Jagdish Narain as a result of which Jagdish Narain fell down.
However, numberdefence witnesses were examined.
The Trial Court companysidered Mahabir Prasad, PW.1, Mukesh, PW.2 and Satya Prakash, PW.4 to be eye witnesses.
It is put at the forefront of the argument by the learned companynsel for the appellant, that when the view taken by the Trial Court is probable on the basis of the material on record, merely because another view is possible, the High Court should number have differed from the Trial Court and proceeded to companyvict the appellant.
RAJENDRA BABU, J. On the allegation that Satya Prakash, elder brother of the appellant, was murdered by Hari Shankar and Jagdish Narain prosecution was launched.
