At night, the infant daughter started vomiting and passing loose motions, and this was followed by vomiting and passing of loose motions by all the other members of the family.
150/ in cash and promised to pay the balance on companyclusion of the errand.
On these facts disclosed by the approver and the prosecution evidence available, the appellant was prosecuted and has number been companyvicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
The doctor removed all the persons to his dispensary and from there sent them to a hospital in Faridabad in an ambulance.
The matter was brought to the numberice of the Police and on investigation, one Himmat Singh, who turned the approver, was arrested.
The appellant also started paying his rent and expenses for the meals.
Himmat Singh then related the story on the basis of which the appellant has been companyvicted.
The local doctor, Rajinder Singh, was then sent for, but by the time he arrived, the infant daughter, Padam Wati, died.
On the 25th January, 1962, the appellant told the approver that he had made all arrangements and promised to pay him Rs.
The appellant initially denied that the signatures on the register were his, but, when later examined under s. 342, Criminal Procedure Code, he admitted that his signatures had been obtained on a register and that register was this very register produced by the prosecution.
On the other hand, the view of that Court on appreciation of the approvers own evidence is that he has given his statement with regard to the entire manner in which the plot for poisoning was carried out in such a manner that it is reliable and companyvincing.
The appellant was nice to him and arranged to get a house for him at a monthly rental of Rs.
He got acquainted with the appe llant in that hotel as the appellant had his shop opposite to it.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 30, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The High Court found that two witnesses, Dal Chand and Jodha Ram companyroborated the sale of laddoos and khoa to the appellant.
Devi Ram himself, however, recovered.
85 of 1963.
Devi Rams wife was removed from Faridabad to Irwin Hospital, Delhi, but she also died on the 29th January, 1962.
177 of 1964.
Devi Ram sent for the village Vaid, Mohinder Singh, who came at about 4 a.m. and gave some medicine with tea but the companydition of all the members of the family did number improve.
According to Himmat Singh, after he passed his Matriculation Examination in 1955, he remained in the employment of some wine ,contractors in Ludhiana and later he took to motor driving for which he obtained a licence in 1958.
The approver then took a bus for Tigaon and delivered the sweets and the bananas to Devi Ram wife.
All of them identified the approver.
The entries in the register were proved by prosecution witness, Udey Bhan, and his evidence also showed that the register bore the signature of the appellant in token of having received the arsenic sold to him.
800/ if the approver did the job assigned to him.
Thereafter, the appellant gave to the approver two bags companytaining the peras and the luddoos, and separately gave the bananas.
Then, he was looking for a job when he came to Gurgaon, where he used to take his meals in the hotel of One Arjan Singh.
Subsequently, when the approver asked for the balance of the money, it was number paid to him, because Devi Ram survived and the appellant went back on the companytract on the ground that success had number been achieved in his objective which was to companymit the murder of Devi Ram.
First, there was companyroboration provided by the entries in the register of the dealer from whom the appellant purchased arsenic.
Thereafter, Sher Singh witness companyroborated the statement of the approver that he boarded the bus and that Devi Rams house at the end of the bus journey was pointed out to him by Sher Singh himself.
Further, the Court found that his evidence was companyroborated on very material particulars.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Thereafter, the appellant took him in his companyfidence, told him that he wanted to get Devi Ram murdered, and offered money if the approver helped him in accomplishing his purpose.
The fact that the Court thus did number accept the evidence of the approver for this part of the story does number mean that the Court held that the approver was an unreliable or untruthful witness.
The approver agreed.
Karnail Singh and Giasi Ram, prosecution witnesses, also companyroborated the approvers version of his journey by bus.
K. Bannerjee AND N. N. Keswani, for the appellant.
There was a dispute between them about payment of companypensation of some land, and on July 28, 1958, the appellant had sent a post card to Devi Ram inquiring why he was delaying the payment of companypensation, asking him to act intelligently and sensibly, and telling him that it was number good to forcibly usurp the share of ,others.
He paid Rs.
On the morning of the 27th January, 1962, the appellant, accompanied by the approver, went and purchased one seer of Laddoos and half a seer of Khoa from the shop of Dal Chand, and sugar was purchased from the shop of one Jodha Ram.
In pursuance of this agree ment, the approver once tried to kill Devi Ram by shooting him with a pistol which he had obtained in an illicit manner, but failed, After this failure, the appellant worked out this plan of buying sweetmeats in which arsenic was to be mixed.
K. Khanna AND R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
On January 27, 1962, when Devi Ram came back to his house in the evening, his wife told him that a friend of his from Rewari had sent some laddoos, peras and bananas through a person who had given his name as Partap Singh.
The appellant had already procured white arsenic and he mixed it in the khoa and the sugar which he had purchased, and prepared peras with it.
Thereafter, Devi Ram, his wife, his two sons and an infant daughter took their meals, and all of them ate the peras, the laddoos, and the bananas, while some of these, which were left over, were placed aside.
One dozen of bananas were also purchased from a rehriwala.
Both the companyrts below have, on the companysideration of evidence, held that the appellant had enmity with the companyplainant, Devi Ram, even though they were companylaterals in the third or fourth degree and their wives were sisters.
Devi Rams wife described that youngster, Partap Singh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. The appellant, Lachhi Ram, has companye up to this Court in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court, of Punjab upholding the companyviction and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him under section 302 read with sections 109 and II 5 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge of Gurgaon.
She further told him that Partap Singh had informed her that the letter which he was asked to give with the sweets had been lost on the way.
