When Dhan Singh reached the grove of Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Bhagwan Swarup and Babu Lal dragged Dhan Singh into the grove with the object of robbing him of his new bicycle.
Dr. D. N. Tewari, Medical Officer, who companyducted the post mortem examination on 26 12 1967 at 4.35 p.m. found one incised wound on the left side of the neck and one punctured wound below the aforesaid wound and one more punctured wound on the right side of the neck of the deceased.
On seeing these witnesses, the two accused picked up the old bicycle as well as the new bicycle of Dhan Singh and ran away Bhagwan Swarup riding the old bicycle and Babu Lal the new bicycle.
On hearing the alarm raised by Dhan Singh, Ravindra Kumar P.W. 1 , Roshan Lal P.W. 2 and Gajendra Pal Singh, who were passing on the service road, rushed to the grove and saw the incident.
The High Court carefully analysed the evidence of Ravindra Kumar and Roshan Lal and they saw numberreason to disbelieve either of them.
Immediately Roshan Lal and others reached there and after beating them arrested both Bhagwan Swarup and Babu Lal.
They were taken along with the bicycle into the grove where Dhan Singh was lying with injuries, bleeding profusely.
The last two wounds, according to him, may have been caused by one Mow.
The report was recorded at the police station at 2 p.m. the same day and the investigation was undertaken by K. C. Tyagi P.W. 7 , who immediately went to the scene of occurrence and seized the knife which was lying near the body of Dhan Singh deceased.
Kamlu P.W. 3 who was companying with a bundle of pulas on his head from the opposite side obstructed Bhagwan Swarup and Babu Lal by throwing his bundle in their way.
They were chased by the aforesaid three witnesses shouting.
When Dhan Singh raised an alarm, Bhagwan Swarup whipped out a knife and stabbed Dhan Singh in the neck.
Dhan Singh deceased was going ahead on a new bicycle.
The prosecution story is supported by Ravindra Kumar P.W. 1 , Roshan Lai P.W. 2 and Kamlu P.W. 3 .
M. Sikri, J. In this case we gave special leave because in the petition filed by the appellant through jail it was alleged that his advocate was number heard in the case because he was busy in another case in another companyrt and arrived too late to argue the murder reference and the appeal before the High Court.
