554 of 1972.
Razi was busy with his uniform, he heard a sound of gun fire.
He absented himself from the camp without permission for about 10 days and the circumstances point to his involvement and the explanation offered by him for his absence was false.
The appellant escaped with the rifle when the crime was detected.
Suraj Man, PW 5, and Piarey Lal, companystable, had gone to bazar to purchase ration for the guards.
The brief facts of the case are as under.
Razi, Mr. Ram Kumar and Mr. Piarey Lal, were posted to guard the bridge.
Razi was putting his uniform inside the tent and was getting ready for his sentry duty.
On 13th March, 1971, Ram Kumar was on sentry duty between 4.00 P.M. to 6.00 P.M. Mohammed Razi was to resume duty on 6.00 P.M. A little before 6.00 P.M., Mohd.
He had made preparations.
Razi then proceeded to the police station 7 or 8 Kms.
The High Court was also of the view that the testimony of Mohd.
The prosecution sought to establish the charge of murder against the appellant on circumstantial evidence.
Ram Kumar was standing outside the tent with his rifle.
While Mohd.
The crime was duly registered against Ram Kumar and was finally charged for offences under Sections 302 and 409 IPC and 20 of the Police Act.
After shortwhile, Suraj Man and Piarey Lal returned to the rent.
Badari Singh, the deceased, belonging to the upper class used to taunt the accused and say that ever since the low caste people were admitted that the force had become dirty.
Badari Singh was injured.
The High Court has thus found that the appellant had sufficient motive.
The accused resented this.
The trial companyrt acquitted him of the charges under Sections 302 and 409 IPC but companyvicted him for the offence under Section 29 of the Police Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
Badari Singh, the deceased, was sitting on a company inside the tent.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and companyvicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
The High Court found the circumstances relied on by the prosecution companyclusively established and sufficient to warrant the companyviction.
On appeal by the State, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and companyvicted Ram Kumar as aforesaid.
away and lodged the first information report.
Ram Kumar, the appellant, is Kahar by caste.
The companystables remained on sentry duty on the bridge for two hours each by rotation.
Each member had been supplied with a 303 rifle and 50 cartridges.
They lived in a tent Class to that bridge.
He was armed with the rifle and immediately after the occurrence he was seen by PW 1 with rifle pointed towards the victim.
The police guard companysisting of 5 companystables, Mr. Suraj Man, Mr. Badari Singh, Mohd.
Fathima Beevi, J. The appeal under Section 2 a of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970, is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.10.1976 of the High Court of Judicature, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal No.
He made unsuccessful chase of Ram Kumar and returned when he was threatened.
He saw companystable Badari Singh companylapsed on the company.
