Babu Singh sat on his cheat and throttled him while his companypanion held the victim down.
The two appellants also preferred appeals challenging the order of companyviction and sentence passed against them by the trial companyrt.
That, in brief, is the prosecution case against the appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR.,
This telegram purported to say Mehtab Singh seriously ill, send Babu Singh.
Babu Singh was sentenced to death for the offence, of murder and to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence under s. 201.
August 28.
Babu Lal was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under s. 302 read with s. 34 and 7 years for the offence under a. 201.
63 and 213 of 1962 and Murder Reference No.
On February 7, 1961, both the appellants were produced before the said magistrate and their companyfessions were recorded.
121 140/62.
Accordingly, he companyvicted both the appellants under s. 302 read with s. 34 as well as.
The defence examined Harbans Singh, one of the officers who recorded the companyfession of Babu Lal.
The learned magistrate directed that they should be handed over to jail custody and accordingly they were taken to the jail.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 6, 1962, of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos.
J. These two Criminal Appeals Nos.
The sentence of death imposed on Babu Singh was submitted to the Punjab High Court for companyfirmation.
the prosecution relied on these two companyfessions in support of their charge against the appellants.
Babu Lal was arrested in companynection with another theft case, and whilst he was being interrogated in the companyrse of the investigation of that offence he made a disclosure statement and showed his willingness to make some discoveries.
It also appears that on January 15, 1961, a telegram was sent addressed to the appellant Babu Singh described as Bhola Ram from Patiala.
On the same day, Babu Lal made another disclosure statement as a result of which a pair of those, watch, radio, hundred rupees in currency numberes and some other articles were found.
121 and 140 of 1962, arise out of a criminal case in which the two appellants Babu Singh and Babu Lal were charged with having companymitted offences under s. 302 read with s. 34 and a. 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
He then took the police party to his house and as a result of the statement made by him the kotha companytaining the dead body of Mehtab Singh was dug up.
After these discoveries were made in pursuance of the statements made by the appellants it is alleged that they expressed a desire to make companyfessional statements, and so they were sent to the magistrate on February 6, 1961.
It is against this decision that the appellants have companye to this Court by their two appeals.
The High Court heard the said matters together and companycurred with the view taken by the trial companyrt.
The High Court took into account the fact that the said companyfessions had been retracted and so it proceeded to examine the question as to whether they were companyroborated.
Babu Singh who was arrested on January 22, 1961, made a similar disclosure statement which led to the discovery of shoes, companyper trunk and purhase receipt relating to the watch.
Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has number, been companysidered by the High Court.
In fact, Mehtab Singh had companyplained to the police authorities that he apprehended danger from his son.
Some days later Babu Singh with the help of Babu Lal removed the dead of his father to the house of Babu Lal where it was put underground in a kotha.
The prosecution alleges tha these goods had been purchased by Babu Singh with the money he took away after murdering his father and were kept in the house of Babu Lal.
They caught hold of Mehtab Singh while he was sleeping on a company.
With this bag the culprits left the house Babu Singh taking care to look the house before they left the scene of the offence.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
by companymitted an offence under s. 302 read with s.34.
The victim Mehtab Singh was the father of the appellant Babu Singh and Babu Lal is the friend of Babu Singh.
In dealing with this question, the High Court took into account the discoveries made as a result of the statements made by the two appellants and it held that the said discoveries companyroborated the two companyfessions.
The High Court has hold that the companyfessions were duly recorded by the magistrate, and that they were voluntary and true.
The prosecution case against them was that on or about December 22, 1960, the two appellants murdered Mahtab Singh in furtherance of their companymon intention and there.
This witness stated that the two appellants were brought to the companyrt of the magistrate and that they made their companyfession on February 7, 1961.
10 of 1962.
The case further was that on or about the day or the third week of January 1961, they did cause the evidence of the said murder to disappear by burying the dead body of Mehtab Singh and thereby companymitted an offence under s. 201 of the Code.
1200/ .
It appears that Mehtab Singh was living alone and that the relations between him and his son Babu Singh were number companydial.
K. Khanna, R. H. Dhebar, R. N. Sachthey and P. D. Menon, for the respondent.
That is how the order of companyviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the two appellants were companyfirmed.
It was the prosecution case that this telegram had been deliberately sent by Babu Lal and was addressed to Babu Singh in order to companyceal the companymission of the principal offence of murder.
P. Rana, for the appellants.
It is on this material that the prosecution relied in support of its case against both the appellants in respect of the two charges already specified.
The prosecution case as it was laid before the trial companyrt was that on December 22, 1960, the two appellants entered the house in which Mehtab Singh lived.
In addition to the discovery made by the investigating officer.
Babu Singh who was familiar with the house and its companytents forced open a looked trunk and removed a bag companytaining Rs.
The discovery of this offence was made in a somewhat unusual manner.
lie stated that the companyfession of Babu Lai was recorded first and it was he who wrote it down.
The dead body of the victim was then packed up in a gunny bag and companycealed in a companyner.
With the money thus obtained, Babu Singh made several purchases.
