THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice G.T. Nanavati Honble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik C. Kaushik, Sat pal Singh and D.K. Garg, Advs.,
However, it gave benefit of doubt to the other four accused on the ground that the possibility of their being falsely implicated companyld number be ruled out in view of the enmity between the parties.
for the appellant S. Pundit, Alkhil Kaushik and R.K. Singh, Advs.
The High Court or re appreciation of the evidence agreed with the finding recorded by the Trial Court.
In the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined these three witnesses.
The Trial Court also found that her evidence received support from the evidence of the other two witnesses who had been the accused running away soon after the companymission of crime and stood companyroborated by the medical evidence.
They saw the accused running a way from the roof.
for the Respondent J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered NANAVATI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
754 of 1978.
Thereafter some of them exhorted Mohan Singh, the appellant to kill him as he was the root of all the litigation.
The appellant was tried with four other accused for the murder of Vijay Singh, son of Jang Bahadur Sing of village Burchuni.
The High Court companyfirmed the companyviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC.
All the five accused, because of previous enmity, were alleged to have gone to the house of Vijay Singh on 7.7.1976 at about 3.30 p.m. They then climbed over the Varandah of his house where Vijay Singh was lying on a company.
Thereupon, the appellant fired a shot from his gun which hit Vijay Singh who was sitting in the kitchen about 10 feet away from the company of the deceased raised an alarm as a result of which Man Singh, PW2 and Pratap Singh, PW4 came there running.
The Trial Court found the evidence of PW3, Chandrakali fully reliable.
They first abused him.
