The dogs began to bark as a result of which Hari Singh P.W. 1 and others were awakened.
On the date of the occurrence, according to P.W. 1, a lantern was burning and at about 4 oclock in the morning he was awakened by the barking of the dogs.
Deena and one of his companypanions had torches in their hands and they came flashing their torches.
On internal examination it was found that the surface of the scalp of the right side was companygested under injury No.
In that case the deceased Nainsukh gave evidence against Deena as an eye witness.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated 17 10 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in Cr.
When Deena was released on bail he wanted to teach a lesson to the witness Nainsukh who had appeared against him.
Four or five other persons came along with Deena.
The other shot fired by Deena injured Chandra Pal and the third shot hit the prosecution witness Hari Singh.
shell of used cartridge was also recovered from the scene.
The injured witness Hari Singh and Chandra Pal then went to Etah Police Station where the report Ex.
found two injuries caused by fire arm on Chandra Pal and one injury on Hari Singh.
The doctor was of the opinion that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause death.
The plea that was made by the defence on the evidence of P.W. 1 was that it cannot be safely relied on.
About two months before the murder of Nainsukh, Deena was released on hail and it was rumoured that Deena was saying that number when he had companye out of jail he would teach a lesson to Nainsukh.
The strings of the company and as well as the straws were stained with blood.
In the morning at about 4 a.m. the appellant Deena and four other came to the Chaupal of Nainsukh.
He found two gun shot injuries, one on the right side of head above the right ear and the other was number traumatic swelling on the back surface of the right hand.
Deena was found guilty of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Apart from the eye witness P.W. 1 the prosecution examined P W. 2 Nihal Singh, P.W. 3 Panna Lal who saw the accused running away after the incident.
We have gone through the testimony of P.W. 1 and witness Chandra Pal and we do number see any material companytradiction.
The motive as alleged by the prosecution stands amply proved.
This resulted in Deena shooting the deceased to death.
After hearing the alarm Nihal Singh, Panna Lal and others reached the place of the incident but before their arrival the accused had made good their escape.
Ka 4 was handed over at Police Station Kotwali at 2.05 a.m. On 21st June, 1971.
While flashing the torches on the deceased Deena fired at Nainsukh aiming towards his head.
Hari Singh received an injury on his right shoulder.
Dr. N. K. Mittal P.W. 13 , the Medical officer of Etah.
The enmity between Deena on the one side and the deceased and his family on the other side is number seriously companytested.
According to the prosecution a lantern was hanging on the platform from the branch of a Neem tree.
P. Rana for the respondent.
Deena and his associates carried pistol and electric torches Deena challenged Nainsukh saying that he would be taught a lesson for appearing as a witness and fired his pistol striking Nainsukh on his head.
Deena and the other accused came at the Chaupal from the staircase on the eastern side.
Nihal Singh, P.W. 2, produced the lantern before the Investigating officer which was burning at the time the occurrence took place.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Three shots were fired and there companyld have been numberdifficulty in P.W. 1 identifying the appellant Deena.
The autopsy on the body of Nainsukh was companyducted by Dr. Prasad on 21st June, 971.
Hari Singh and Chandra Pal shouted for help.
18/74.
The deceased Nainsukh gave evidence against Deena in the murder case in which Ram Chandra was killed.
Nainsukh, Hari Singh and their relations took the threat seriously and were living cautiously.
After companying over the Chabutra of the Chaupal the accused stated Nainsukh, beware, number I will teach you the lesson for giving the evidence.
So far as the scene of the offence is companycerned it was number seriously disputed before the High Court.
The shot hit Nainsukh on the head.
1013 of 1974 and Reference No.
The case for the prosecution is that on the night of the 20th and 21st June, 1971 the deceased Nainsukh, his brother Hari Singh, his distant uncle Tika Ram, Chandra Pal, daughters son of Tika Ram and Chokhey slept on a platform of the Chaupal in village Jar.
A. No.
Badri Das Sharma amicus curiae for the appellant.
The First Information Report was written by Bharat Singh on the dictation of Hari Singh.
239 of 1975.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAILASAM J. This appeal is preferred by Deena alias Din Dayal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court companyvicting and sentencing him.
The Police officer took up the investigation and reached the scene at about 1.30 p.m. He found the dead body of Nainsukh and held the inquest, prepared the site plan and recovered the material objects.
They were also injured.
Reliance was number placed by the companyrts below on the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3.
The Serologist had found human blood on the straws.
It is seen that there was a bundle of straw and a company at the scene.
It was submitted that the other injured witness Chandra Pal who was examined as a companyrt witness did number fully support the evidence of the prosecution.
The companyviction therefore solely rests on the testimony of eye witness Hari Singh, P.W. Hari Singh P.W. 1 has spoken of the motive.
Deena was one of the accused in the case.
About 4 or 6 years prior to the occurrence one Ram Chandra was murdered.
The doctor found a fissured fracture of the right parietal bone, vertically placed from the suture line to eye brow.
