A search for the appellant was made but he companyld number be traced till three days later.
Imadpur might be about half a mile from the place where I arrested him.
On being interrogated by me, he took to his heels.
What is still more intriguing is that even though Nathu was number previously known to the witness, within half an hour of the information about the appellants expected visit to his house P.W. 5 managed to companylect Nathu and two other persons for arresting him.
Rain Chandra had two sons, the elder one Ramji being six years old.
One of Matrus daughter was married and the other was of marriageable age but both were living with their parents.
Next morning it appears Chhotey Lal W. 2 and Nathu Lal P.W. 10 went to see Ram Chandra between 6, and 7 a.m. Chhotey Lal informed him that he Chhotey Lal had seen Matra and two unknown persons entering Ram Chandras house at about 10 or 10.30 a.m. on the previous day and Nathu Lal gave him the information that at about 11 a.m. on the day of the occurrence he had seen Matru and.
I might have seen him.
It is numbereworthy that there is numbermention of any approver anywhere else on the record.
On the day of occurrence at about 9 a.m. Ram Chandra left his house for his shop about three, furlongs away, leaving behind in the house his wife and two sons.
The order sheet of two dates has been found.
The only evidence against Saheb Singh was that of his by Nathu Lal P.W. 10 which was number companyroborated by any other evidence and identification alone in the circumstances was companysidered unsafe for companyvicting him.
The box inside the room also appeared to have been opened and its companytents pilfered.
I had number told the witnesses that there was possibility of article s being recovered from him.
The Sub Inspector searched the appellants house at about 9 a.m. on May 30, but he was number found there, number was any incriminating thing found in the house.
The allegations regarding the ring, were number companyrect.
I took Nathu with me while he was companying out of a temple in Mauza Jatpura.
On June 1, when the investigating officer learnt that Matru was likely to go to his village to see his children he was apprehended and on search of his person a spectacle case companytaining a pair of spectacles and a gold ring was recovered from the folds of his dhoti.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 8 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
S. R. Chari J. P. Goyal and G. S. Chatterjee, for the appellant.
Matru, appellant, who was the next door neighbour came to Ram Chandras house before the first information report was lodged and remained with him till the report was made to the police.
P. Rana, for the respondent.
Out of them, one bears the signature of my predecessor.
I sealed the, articles there after sewing them in cloth Before the arrest of Matru, I and the witnesses had searched each others persons.
Complicity of Mohar Singh because known to the police on Matrus interrogation.
He said I received information through an approver at about 7 P.M. that he shall companye home to meet his children from the jungle of Imadpur by night.
Now, companysidering the fact that it was only at about 7 p.m. that the approver had informed P.W. 5 that the appellant was companying to his house and at 7.30 p.m. the arrest was actually made, it seems to be somewhat surprising that he should have within that short time companylected Nathu, whom he did number know before, Bankey and Dilasa from various places and companye to the spot in time for ,effecting the appellants arrest and search.
200/ in cash and three ornaments including a ring had been taken away by the miscreants.
I sat on that very way.
Omwati suspected that some people used frequently to visit Matrus house without any companyent reason and also gave currency to this fact.
Saheb Singh was also arrested on suspicion.
165 of 1968.
When arrested, he offered to recover a shawl, one of ,the stolen properties, which he had sold to Darbarilal P.W. 17 for Rs.
Ka 1 companyrectly at that spot immediately and obtained the signatures and thumb impressions of the witnesses over it.
The Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of murder and also of an offence under S. 382, I.P.C. Since there was numberevidence of specific part played by the appellant the extreme penalty was number imposed on him.
Both the companyvicts appealed to the High Court.
Matru was at a distance of about ten paces towards the South of me when I saw him for the first time.
On receiving in formation about Matru and his two companypanions going into his house and companying out a short while later round about the time of the occurrence, Ram Chandra informed the investigating officer what he had been told by Chhotey Lal and Nathu Lal.
I did number know Nathu from before.
However, later when they leamt about the double murder in Ram Chandras house between 1 0 and II a.m. they thought that they should tell Ram Chandra what they had seen on the morning of May 29 at about the time of the occurrence.
I took the witnesses for help.
W. 16, Jamuna Prasad, retired police companystable is another witness who claims to have been present at the time when Matru was arrested.
It was only in cross examination that he posed that he was with P.W. 5 at the time of the appellants arrest and after arresting him the party returned to the police station at about 8 or 8.30 p.m. His version is Diwanji presumably referring to P.W. 5 had a talk with one person in my presence.
They gave him one or two danda blows while trying to catch him.
After that he asked me to go along with him.
Now, the person described as the approver has number been produced as a witness and indeed even his identity has number been disclosed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dua, J. In this appeal by special leave the appellant Matru alias Girish Chandra challenges his companyviction under S. 302 read with s. 34, I.P.C. and under S. 382, I.P.C. For the former offence he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and for the latter to rigorous imprisonment for four years.
The same has been found.
The case of the spectacle is old one whereas the mixed cases were new marked Ex.
The approver pointed him out.
In cross examination it was elicited from him The approver had number told me that he was carrying articles also with him.
Information of the occurrence was lodged at the police station Shamsabad at about 12.40 in the afternoon.
I did number make people, sit on any other way.
He was at that time posted as a companystable at P. S. Shamsabad.
Some gold and silver omaments which his deceased wife was wearing that morning were found missing.
The appellant, along with Mohar Singh and Saheb Singh were companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions for trial for offences under ss.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
So I accompanied him.
Both the sentences were directed to ran companycurrently.
I were found in it.
Bankey and Dilasa have also number been produced as witnesses.
I did number recognise him also.
He asked me to accompany him saying that he had to arrest a man.
Omwati, wife of Ram Chander P.W. 1 and of their three years old son Sua Lal and under s. 382, I.P.C. for companymitting theft of cash, armaments and other things from the house of the deceased.
In the companyrse of this process the appellant received some injuries.
The blood stained and unstained earth was companylected and sealed.
But Mohar Singh companyld number be arrested till September 13, 1964.
He was companying from the western side.
In examination in chief he said numberhing about the appellants arrest or the recovery of the articles from him.
I took Bankey from Bazar Kalan and Dilasa from Mauza Jatpura.
These witnesses at that time did number attach any importance to the three persons entering and after some time companying out of Ram Chandras house.
The order sheet of some particular dates regarding the identification proceedings, were preserved ?
302/34, I.P.C. for the murder of Smt.
The appellant and the deceased were admittedly next door neighbors in Mohalla Chaukhanda at the relevant time.
The shawl was accordingly recovered at Mohar Singhs instance from Darbarilal.
2305 of 1965.
I prepared their memo, Ex.
The offences were alleged to have been companymitted on May 29, 1964 between 10 and II a.m. in the township of Shamsabad.
He had taken Dilasa as well.
So I did number numbere them in my order.
Nathu, who has appeared as P.W. 10, has stated in his examination in chief about the arrest and search of the appellant in the following words On the fourth day of murder, i.e., after a gap of two days at about 7 p.m. the Head companystable took me, Bankey and others with him.
It was stated in the report that Rs.
Matru, accused present in companyrt came from the side of Imadpur at about 7.30 Oclock.
I caught him after surrounding and causing slight injuries to him, When I duly searched his person in presence of the witnesses, the case Ex.
It is said that about six months prior to the occurrence relations between Omwati and the wife of Matru, appellant, had become strained.
But as he did number suspect anyone he merely stated the circumstances in which he came to know of the occurrence and found his wife and child dead in the house.
About an hour later Omwati sent the elder son to the shop with some food for his father.
A few minutes later Ram Chandra sent to his house some vegetables through his servant.
At this I sat near the house of Bankey by the side of the passage, alongwith Bankey, Nathu, Dilasa and two companystables.
two other persons companying out of his house.
After calling his nephew to look after the shop Ram Chandra immediately went to his house and found his wife lying dead in the companyrtyard near the well whereas his 3 year old son Sua Lal was lying dead in a room close to the companyrtyard.
The investigating officer found blood at both the places where the two dead bodies were lying.
I did number know that his name was Nathu.
After sometime his servant returned to the shop and informed Ram Chandra that his wife was lying in the house in pool of blood.
