death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the punctured wound in the chest, causing injuries to the lungs and these injuries companyld be caused with a sharp edged weapon.
The appellant had the deceased ,in his grip, he asked Qudrat Ullah to hand over a knife to him which the latter did and with it the appellant stabbed the deceased and then went away to his house.
The postmortem examination of the deceased showed injuries on the person of the deceased and, according to the doctor.,
The evidence of Yad Ali P. W. 1, is that he heard an exchange of abuses between the deceased and the appellant and when he moved about 4 or 5 paces he saw them grappling with each other.
Ahmed, P. W. 3.
60 of 1953 arising out of the judgment and order dated July 8, 1952, of the Court of Sessions Judge at Bareilly in Criminal Sessions Trial No.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated October 18, 1955, of the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No.
As a result of the injuries the deceased fell down infront of Qudrat Ullahs shop some witnesses have stated that he fell on the wooden plank in front of the shop.
The State took an appeal only against the appellant which was allowed by the High Court.
This companyduct of Qudrat Ullah is so inconsistent with the part said to have been played by him in the occurrence that we have little hesitation in rejecting the evidence about the part played by him.
Ahmed, P.W. Having been told by the sister of the deceased as to the occurrence, Ashraft, P.W. 4 came to the spot later and found the deceased lying unconscious.
Daulat Ram Prem and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant, Gyan Chand Mathur and C. P. Lal, for the respondent.
Adjacent to the shop is the house of the appellant.
There was numberenmity between him and Sabir and he bad numbermotive to get him killed by the respondent.
It does number at all appear probable that after abetting the murder of Sabir he at once took him on a rickshaw to the hospital and from there went at once to the police station and lodged a report against the respondent.
Qudrat Ullah picked up the knife which had been dropped by the appellant, put the deceased in a rickshaw and took him to the hospital from where he went to the Police Station and made the First Information Report.
Shakir, P.W. 5, younger brother of the deceased, on arriving near the shop of Qudrat Ullah heard the appellant and the deceased exchanging abuses, but was number a witness of the assault as just at that time he had gone, at the request of Qudrat Ullah, to fill his Chillum for the hookka and when he came back he found the deceased lying unconscious and the appellant running away towards his house.
The High Court, however, accepted the.
A First Information Report is number a substantivepiece of evidence and can only be used to companyroborate the statement of the maker under s. 157 of the Evidence Act or to companytradict it under s. 145 of that Act.
The facts which have given rise to the appeal are that Sabir was murdered on the 11th May, 195 1, at about 6 30 p.m. The First Information Report was made by Qudrat Ullah the other accused at 6 45 p.m. the same day, i.e., within about 15 minutes of the occurrence.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J. The appellant along with one Qudrat Ullah was tried for the murder of one Sabir.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The prosecution case was that there was an exchange of abuses between the deceased and the appellant near the shop of the First Informant, Qudrat Ullah.
testimony of the eye witnesses as against the appellants guilt and observed We are satisfied that the prosecution has fully established the, case against the respondent.
The presumption of innocence has been fully rebutted by the prosecution.
27 of 1952.
Evidence discloses that the deceased and the appellant were quite friendly with each other, and so were the deceased and Qudrat Ullah, who is a butcher and had a shop which is a part of his house.
The Sub Inspector went to the spot, started investigation and arrested the appellant the same evening at his house.
Against the judgment of the High Court the appellant has brought this appeal by Special Leave.
The appellant is stated to have asked Qudrat Ullah to hand over a knife to him which Qudrat Ullah did this knife is Ex.
February 14.
This evidence was number accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and he acquitted both the accused.
There is number the slightest doubt about his guilt.
Eye witnesses of the occurrence were Yad Ali, P.W. 1, Banne, P.W. 2 and Mohd.
150 of 1956.
An objection has been taken to the admissibility of this report as it was made by a person who was a companyaccused.
The statement of Banne is similar and so is the statement of Mohd.
I II, with which the appellant stabbed the deceased and then fled away.
The appellant and the deceased both belong to a sect of Jogis.
But the State took an appeal to the Allahabad High Court against the appellant only and the judgment of acquittal in his case was reversed and he was companyvicted under s. 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to transportation for life.
The case against him does number become doubtful merely because the learned Sessions Judge said that there was a doubt about his guilt.
The latter was tried under s. 302 read with s. 114 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment, and the former under s. 302 I.P.C. Both the accused were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge of Bareilly.
On hearing this numberse, the prosecution witnesses arrived at the spot and saw the appellant and the deceased grappling with each other.
The cause of the quarrel was that on the evening of the occurrence while Qudrat Ullah was sitting in his shop and the deceased was sitting just below the shop, the appellant came out of his house and on seeing him, the deceased asked him as to why he was in such a dishevelled companydition , which annoyed the appellant and gave rise to an exchange of abuses.
