This part of the companyfessional statement is fully companyroborated number only by oral but also by documentary evidence.
Trilok Singh and Raghubir Singh surrendered hut Asa Singh remained absconding.
Briefly the prosecution case may be summarised as follows Respondent Asa Singh and his brother Bal Singh had entered into an agreement with Ram Lal P.W. 16 and his father Kaka Ram for purchasing 68 bighas of land at the rate of Rs.
Before we took up the appeal for hearing we segregated the appeal of Asa Singh as he was absconding and directed that the appeal against other respondents will be heard but the appeal of Asa Singh will be kept pending.
The respondent Asa Singh statement that the land was to be purchased by Bal Singh and number by him really makes numberdifference as Ram Lal who was admittedly the purchaser was an independent witness and he testified on oath to the transaction relating to the sale deed which provided the immediate motive for the murder.
30/ per day on the ground that he had to visit several places like Hardwar, Roorkee, Saharanpur, Meerut, Moradabad, Mathura, Brindaban, Aligarh, Agra etc.
on 9.12.63 his officer Shri Silva informed him that car bearing No.
The witness then reported the matter.
three persons came to sell a fiat car of 1962 model bearing No.
These men took food at my shop.
In his statement in companyrt the witness categorically stated that the statement he had made before the companymitting companyrt was companyrect.
Police Station and he signed the same.
he along with Trilok Singh and Raghubir Singh proceeded to Bombay to sell the car and that the number of the car was change l to UPM 3236.
The witness further states that of the three persons who met him two were Sardars and one was without a beard.
respondent at the police station Moonak.
30/ per day.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 29 9 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
200/ .
3200/ was liable to be forfeited.
Moreover, the report was number really the report of murder companytaining a detailed narration of the facts.
The respondent then goes on to state that Trilok Singh wanted to purchase land at Chidderwala and had paid Rs.
He is present in the Court.
The expert had marked the signature of the respondent Boota Singh at Exhibit Ka 4 as S 3894.
The witness gave the receipt given to him by the respondent Boota Singh.
They accordingly hit upon a plan to obtain a taxi on hire and after taking possession of it to do away with the driver and sell the taxi at some other place and utilise the companysideration of the sale for payment to Ram Lal towards the balance of the purchase money.
The witness further stated that as the balance of the amount was eventually number paid, the vendor did number deliver possession of the land.
After the usual investigation, the Police submitted a charge against all the four respondents on the basis of which they were companymitted to the Court of SESSIONS and companyvicted and sentenced LI indicated above.
The respondent Boota Singh then goes on to state that at Bombay he stayed for 3 or 4 days first in a Gurdwara and then in Amrit Hotel and negotiated for the sale of the car through a broker and when the deal was settled the respondent received an advance of 200 but the intending purchaser insisted that the registration of the car should be changed into that of Bombay.
On the evening of that day these men came by a car to take food.
The respondent further mentioned in the companyfession that he paid an advance of Rs.
Asa Singh.
The High Court appears to have brushed aside the evidence of these independent witnesses on trivial and speculative grounds.
This really companystituted the motive for the incident leading to the murder of the deceased, Lal Singh.
At the time when the special leave was granted, the Court issued number bailable warrants against the four respondents in pursuance of which Boota Singh.
50/ was paid in advance.
Emphasis ours .
16,000/ or Rs.
He was number given any direction for the arrest of the accused.
Emphasis supplied l .
The customer after examining the chassis and the engine number of the car became a little suspicious and asked the witness to verify the same and was number willing to purchase unless the car was a genuine one.
At the same parade the respondent Trilok Singh was identified by P.W. 8 Pritam Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh.
He further admitted that he did number say anything to the Magistrate in regard to pressure.
The gist of the motive mentioned in the companyfession is clearly companyroborated by the evidence of P.W. 16 Ram Lal who has deposed that during the time of the occurrence Asa Singh and his brother Bal Singh wanted to purchase his land and the transaction was settled at the rate of Rs.
The witness tried to explain in companyrt that companynsel for the respondent dictated the report to the reader who took down the same and thereafter he affixed his signature.
The car belonged to Lal Singh.
Similarly, P. W. 7 Jaideo Singh companypletely resiled from his statement which he made before the companymitting companyrt which was also transferred under section 288 Cr.
The respondent Boota Singh who is on bail shall surrender and serve out the remaining portion of the sentence.
The companyfession was sought to be companyroborated by a large number of circumstances proved by the prosecution at the trial and which will be discussed hereafter.
In pursuance of this companyspiracy Lal Singh was taken to the forest and killed by the respondents.
In the first place, the High Court found that there were tell tale circumstances in the ease which did number exclude the possibility of the respondent Boota Singh and others having been shown to the witnesses at police station Moonak and Dalanwala before the T.I. parade was held at Dehradun.
The signature of the Respondent was sent to the expert along with his admitted specimen signatures and the expert P.W. 32 Shiv Ram Singh found that it companypletely tallied with the signature of the respondent Boota Singh.
The sister of Trilok Singh was married to Piara Singh, the respondents fathers sisters son at village Moonak, as a result of which Asa Singh and Trilok Singh used to visit the respondent at Kichha off and on.
Boota Singh thereafter executed a document Ex.
In the circumstances it was number expected of him to have arrested accused Asa Singh.
The witness further stated that Apart from the respondent Boota Singh who masqueraded as one K. Sharma there were two more Sardars near the petrol pump where the car was standing.
16,000 out of which a sum of Rs.
This happened on 16th December, 1963.
All these witnesses were undoubtedly independent witnesses and were number known to Boota Singh at all, number they bore any animus against him.
Moreover, the Sessions Judge while criticising the evidence of this witness observed as follows The defence examined Amir Ahmad P.W. 3 who was posted as a Head Constable, Karanpur outpost, Dehra Dun.
The respondent further gave his name as Sharma and wanted the taxi for 20 clays.
The respondent Boota Singh then goes on to state that all of them drank wine at the house of Asa Singh and chalked out a programme of companymitting the murder of Lal Singh for the purpose of taking exclusive possession of the car and in pursuance of this companyspiracy except respondent Raghubir Singh all the four, namely, Boota Singh, Asa Singh, Trilok Singh and Gopi took Lal Singh to the forest.
Asa Singh and Trilok Singh were companysins, the sons of Chacha and Tau of each other and live together at Chhidderwala.
According to the prosecution, as disclosed in the companyfession of respondent Boota Singh Ex.
On the 18th February 1963 respondent Boota Singh along with Anand Singh P.W. 9 went to the office of the R.T.O. at Bombay and companytacted P.W. 35 Rati Lal Chhotu Bhai Desai who was a Motor Vehicles Inspector and who was shown various papers by Boota Singh.
225 per bigha and an earnest money of Rs.
In companying to this finding, however, the High Court companypletely overlooked the evidence of these very witnesses which companypletely excluded the possibility of the respondent having been shown to the witnesses.
He obtained my signature on a blank paper Thus, the two statements were wholly inconsistent with each other and companyclusively show that the stand taken by the respondent which differed from companyrt to companyrt was absolutely false and incredible.
Thus, the inference the High Court draws from this evidence is that the respondent Asa Singh was shown to the witnesses Pritam Singh and Jagir Singh who were brought together from Dalanwala to Moonak.
Raghubir Singh and Trilok Singh boarded the taxi when it reached the petrol pump.
Trilok Singh, Raghubir Singh and Gopi Goojar along with Boota Singh companyspired together to bring some taxi from Dehra Dun and sell the same, so that the balance of the companysideration money for the land might be paid and the sale deed got registered.
The central evidence against the respondents companysists of the companyfessional statement made by Boota Singh on 16th March, 1964 before Mr. M. L. Sharma, Magistrate First class who has been examined as P.W 23 and in the companyfession Boota Singh appears to have made a clean breast of the entire story detailing the various parts played by him and his other companypanions.
Thereafter, three of them proceeded to Doiwala in the taxi hired by Boota Singh which was driven by the deceased Lal Singh who was the son of Inder Singh.
N. Mulla, Yogeswar Pd.,
Indeed, if it was so, he would have at once companyplained to the companymitting Magistrate.
Desai then saw the car and discovered some tampering with the chassis number.
The trial companyrt rightly pointed out that the prosecution had proved the motive for the offence by clear evidence.
Meanwhile as Lal Singh did number return for quite a number of days, his brother Harcharan Singh got worried and filed a missing report before the Police Station Dalanwala, district Dehra Dun on 31st December, 1963 wherein he expressed his apprehension that the person who had hired the taxi may have killed Lal Singh and driven away the car This report was treated by the Police as F.I.R. and investigation was started in the companyrse of which the blanket of deceased Lal Singh was recovered from the forest and the respondent Boota Singh soon after his arrest made the companyfession Ex.
500 to the witness.
Trilok Singh and Raghubir Singh remained standing at the petrol pump a few paces away from the office of the Punjab Taxi Service.
Ka 4 in proof of the receipt of the car and paid Rs.
The taxi given to Boota Singh bore number UPS 6679.
By the time the report was lodged Harcharan Singh was number in possession of full facts, and therefore, he gave a very brief report.
He came to take his tea when these men were eating their food.
From Dehra Dun the taxi came to Doiwala where the party of Boota Singh was joined by Asa Singh.
The High Court particularly relied on the evidence of W. 3 Amir Ahmad who had stated that he had arrested the respondent Asa Singh on 6 1 1964 and taken him to police station Dalanwala.
18,000 for the car and offered a companymission of Rs.
Boota Singh was also related to Trilok Singh inasmuch as Trilok sister is wedded to the companysin of Boota Singh.
the High Court ought to have decided this question on the direct evidence of the witnesses companycerned rather than on pure surmises and companyjectures.
Similarly, P.W. 9 Anand Singh has also identified the respondent Boota Singh both in the identification parade and in companyrt.
W. 9 Anand Singh states that he was plying a taxi at Bombay.
Inder Singh directed Lal Singh to take the taxi with Boota Singh and his companypanions.
Trilok Singh and Lal Singh were taking food together.
But as there was some discrepancy in the chassis number and the engine number P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane became a little suspicious.
500 was to, be given to Raja Ram Narain Rane P.W. 62.
3200/ had been paid by Asa Singh and Bal Singh at the time of the agreement and the balance of the amount was agreed to be paid on the 25th December, 1963.
17,000/ ?
The appeal against Trilok Singh abates as he is dead.
UPM 3236.
In execution of this companymon plan Asa Singh remained at Doiwala while Boota Singh, Trilok Singh and Raghubir Singh went to Dehra Dun and companytacted Inder Singh W. 2 at Punjab Taxi Service, Dehra Dun.
The next circumstance mentioned in the companyfession was that on 8th December, 963 Asa Singh, Trilok Singh, Raghubir Singh, Gopi Goojar and respondent Boota Singh started in the tractor of Asa Singh and on reaching Doiwala Asa Singh and Gopi stopped there but the other three, namely, Trilok Singh, Raghubir Singh and Boota Singh proceeded to, Dehra Dun by bus.
Similarly, P.W. 59 Vikram Singh clearly stated that although he found Boota Singh and Trilok Singh at P.S. Moonak they were in police custody and they were Bapurdah.
As three of the respondents, viz.,
16,000 is a matter of detail on which even if there is some discrepancy that will number put the prosecution case out of companyrt, so far as the motive is companycerned.
W. 2 Inder Singh deposes that on 9 12 63 which he was in his office along with Pritam Singh and Jagir Singh an unbearded gentleman came to him at about 4 to 4.30 p.m. and represented that he wanted to have a taxi car on hire.
K. S. Chimni.
UPM 3236 seems to be a stolen property and an enquiry should be made from the R.T.Os office.
He has, therefore, a grudge with the Meerut C.I.D. He did number know Asa Singh before he arrested him.
P.W. 20 who had arrested Boota Singh and Trilok Singh categorically stated thus I arrested Boota Singh and Trilok Singh accused at Moonak in companynection with that case.
The witness goes on to state that on 8 1964 the Station officer took him to Moonak and he went along with him.
The brother of the deceased was naturally upset because the taxi having been taken on the 8th December had number returned for 23 days but he did number know what had happened.
After some time the man named Anand Singh came there and gave him a receipt relating to an advance payment of Rs.
1600/ or the companysideration was more than Rs.
If he did number mention the receipt given by the respondent in this report that by itself would number throw any suspicion on the authenticity of the receipt more particularly when the companyclusive circumstance that the receipt companytained the signature of the respondent as found by the expert had been established.
Thus all the four respondents were last seen together at Doiwala by P.W.s S and 7.
The witness further state l that there.
The evidence of these two witnesses clearly shows that every possible precaution was taken to keep the respondent Bapurdah throughout and even at the Police Station Moonak so that the respondent may number be able to see the witnesses.
The prosecution alleged that Asa Singh and Boota Singh respondents were first companysins and were residents of Chhidarwala.
Thereafter, the respondents Boota Singh and Raghubir Singh went to Ambala where they tried to get the car with the new number insured, and finally landed at Bombay and negotiated for the sale of the car through a broker and in this companynection companytacted P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane who offered to buy the car Al Rs.
But in cross examination he made out a new case that the statement before the companymitting companyrt was made at the instance of the police.
therefore, placed before the Police officer and Boota Singh sensing some trouble made good his escape.
The witness accordingly searched for a customer.
The fact however that the respondent was prepared to make a clean breast number only of the facts of the present case but also of the other incident clearly shows that he was speaking the truth exhibiting real sense of penitence flowing from the pricking of his companyscience.
Thereafter.
P.C. Before the Committing Court the witness had stated that he had gone to take tea in the hotel of Khem Singh and found Asa Singh.
The respondent Trilok Singh had accompanied Asa Singh and the latter went to Ram Lal for negotiating the aforesaid purchase.
On 18.12.63 Boota Singh as J. P. Singh took him to the office of the Ex R.T.O. for getting the registration number changed at Bombay.
I shut Both of them at P.S. Moonak in a Bapurdah state.
On the basis of the evidence of these witnesses the High Court suspected that the respondents must have been shown to the witnesses at Police Station Moonak.
The respondent Boota Singh is also companyvicted under section 364 read with section 34 and section 120 B I.P.C. and Section 394 read with section 31 and section 120 B I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under each companynt.
He stated that Asa Singh was arrested by him on 6 1 64 near Roadways Stand, Dehradun and that he took him to P.S. Dalanwala.
30 per day.
the State of U.P. preferred an appeal to this Court and after special leave was granted by this Court the appeal has been placed before us for hearing.
but as the purchaser was short of money.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDlCTlON Criminal Appeal No.
After having accomplished this nefarious feat the respondents took the precaution of removing the number plate of the car and substituted a new plate bearing number UPM 3236.
The respondents who have been companyvicted by the Sessions Judge also filed appeals against their companyvictions and sentences.
The witness went to the R.T.O.s office and took the car into his custody.
He too was known to me from before.
He merely knew that the Station officer had left for his arrest.
During the pendency of the appeal the respondent Trilok Singh died and it is, therefore, manifest that the appeal so far as this respondent is companycerned has abated.
W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane had categorically stated that he had number seen the respondent Boota Singh anywhere in the intervening period i.e. between the time when he visited him at Bombay and the T.I. parade held at Dehra Dun.
3200/ had been paid as earnest money.
50/ which he had paid to Inder Singh for hiring the taxi.
From there the respondents proceeded to Chhidarwala by forest road and after crossing some forest barriers ultimately reached Chiddarwala where it was decided to murder Lal Singh and take companyplete possession of the taxi.
The description oil the car is given in the report and the witness has expressed the apprehension that the respondent may have killed the driver and driven away the car.
The trial Court discussed the evidence of this witness and gave companyent reasons for rejecting the testimony of the witness particularly when the witness was a disgruntled one having been suspended on a criminal charge and therefore, would be ready to oblige the defence.
P.W. 9 Anand Singh and P.W. 62 Raja Ram Narain Rane proved that the respondent Boota Singh companytacted them for sale of the car and had shown the car to them.
W. 59 Vikram Singh deposes as follows founded Boota Singh and Trilok Singh at P.S. Moonak.
50/ as advance.
Boota Singh was further companyvicted of the offence under section 419, I.P.C. and section 471 read with section 465 T.P.C. and section 47 read with section 466 P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years, one year and four years respectively.
The entire statement of the witness is untrustworthy and unconvincing.
The persons who was without beard gave out his name as J. P. Singh and he affixed his signature on the receipt.
50/ and executed a receipt.
So far as the present occurrence is companycerned, the companyfession ends here but the respondent goes on to narrate another incident in which also the respondent tried to get another taxi.
Boota Singh, Trilok Singh and Asa Singh were sentenced to death, the Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court of Allahabad for companyfirmation of the sentence of death.
The witness had identified the respondent Boota Singh at Dehra Dun and Raghubir Singh at Nainital at an identification parade held by a Magistrate.
Thereafter all the members of the party took their meals at the hotel of Khem Singh P.W. 5 and Boota Singh had purchased a cake of soap from the shop of Jaidev Singh P.W. 7.
After the agreement, Asa Singh appears to have found some difficulties in arranging for the money to be paid to the vendee P.W. 16 Ram Lal and under the terms of the agreement if the money was number paid by the due date the entire amount of earnest money of Rs.
I made them Bapurdah and told them that they were to Be identified.
were three Sardars with them and one of them was known as Gyani and there were two drivers, one of them was Jagir Singh and the other was Pritam Singh.
To the same effect is the evidence of P.W. 14 Jagir Singh an l P.W. 2, Pritam Singh.
In the face of this clear and specific evidence where was the question for the High Court to companyjecture or speculate that the witness must have been shown to the.
151 /69.
Ka 81, Trilok Singh first fired two shots at the deceased and then Asa Singh dealt a gandasa blow on the neck of the deceased.
30 per day and paid an advance of Rs.
None of the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge appear to have been displaced by the High Court and were number even numbericed by it.
K. S. Chimni was actually made by the respondent Boota Singh himself, but as his signatures were number sent to the expert, there was numberproof of the fact that it was the respondent Boota Singh who had signed the entry.
They had been under custody of the Punjab Police and they were Bapurdah.
We accordingly allow the appeal of the State against Boota Singh set aside the judgment of the High Court and companyvict respondent Boota Singh of offences under section 302 read with section 34 and Section 120 B I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo life imprisonment for these offences.
225 per bigha, and 68 bighas of land were to be sold.
The learned Sessions Judge has carefully companysidered the evidence of these witnesses and has accepted the same.
The papers were?
After taking their food these four men along with Lal Singh went away by the car towards Rishikesh.
Then he went back to his shop out of these men Trilok Singh and Asa Singh accused pre sent in Court were known to me from before.
The High Court has made numberreal attempt to companysider the intrinsic evidence of these two independent witnesses which lends full and companyplete assurance to and provide an independent companyroboration of the companyfession made by Boota Singh.
Apart from Exhibit Ka 4 there is independent and reliable evidence to show that Boota Singh and others had approached P.W. 2 Inder Singh for living the taxi on hire to respondent Boota Singh and the deal was struck as a result of which Rs.
The whole transaction was for Rs.
The appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which reversed the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and acquitted all the respondents of the charges framed against them.
These facts have number been challenged by the defence.
In this companynection the witnesses examined by the prosecution arc P.W. 2 Inder Singh, P.W. 8 Pritam Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh.
Both these witnesses identified the respondent Boota Singh at Dehra Dun at a T.I. parade held by W. 23 M. L. Sharma as discussed above.
He was unable to explain why he did number ll adopt the same procedure in this instance.
In such a situation the four respondents entered into a companyspiracy to obtain money by means fair or foul.
He had numberwarrant for his arrest.
The circumstances relied upon by the High Court may be summarised thus P.W. 20 Sri Ram Bajaj admits that he had arrested Boota Singh and Trilok Singh at Moonak and kept both of them look cd up at Police Station Moonak.
Boota Singh respondent went in and approached Inder Singh P.W. 2 and introduced himself as K. Sharma of the Indian Army and gave out that he was on a round for recruiting girls for the military and for this purpose he needed the taxi on hire.
He had a talk with the person who named himself as J. P. Singh and represented himself to be son of S. P. Bareilly.
All the sentences are to run companycurrently.
Pritam Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh that the respondent had approached them for hiring the taxi and he himself executed the receipt Exhibit Ka 4 and affixed his signature in their presence.
Lal Singh, the deceased son of Inder Singh was the driver of the taxi and in fact the virtual owner of the taxi.
Subsequently, the respondents were identified by some of the witnesses at T.I. parades held at Nainital and Dehra Dun.
The receipt appears to have been signed by the respondent as Sharma.
50/ and gave a receipt to Inder Singh.
He further Admitted that he did number tell the Magistrate that he would like to read the statement made by him.
32 of 1972.
The evidence of these witnesses fully companyroborates the facts stated by the respondent Boota Singh in his companyfession which have been detailed above.
W. 62 Raja Ram Narain states that he was a broker dealing with the motor cars.
The witness also identified Boota Singh before the Sessions Court.
the witness goes on to say that the driver the car was his son Lal Singh the deceased and the number of the car was UPS 6679 and it was of Fiat make.
Thereafter they identified the respondent Boota Singh both in the companymitting companyrt and the Sessions Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Allahabad High Court dated 29th September, 1970 by which the High Court acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them by the Sessions Judge Dehra Dun.
The Sessions Judge, Dehra Dun by his order dated 16th July, 1969 companyvicted the respondents Boota Singh, Asa Singh, Trilok Singh and Raghubir Singh under section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C. and also under section 120 B I.P.C. Boota Singh, Trilok Singh and Asa Singh were sentenced to death under section 302 read with section 34 and section 120 B P.C. while Raghubir Singh was sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under section 302 read with section 34 and section 120 B I.P.C. The four respondents mentioned above were also companyvicted under section 364 read with section 34 and section 120 B I.P.C. and section 394 read with section 34 and section 120 B I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under each companynt.
Trilok Singh fired two shots at Lal Singh and Asa Singh dealt a Gandasa blow on the neck of the deceased.
The alleged explanation that he did number get an entry made because he had numberwarrant does number appeal to reason He also admitted that he was being prosecuted for murder by Meerut C.I.D. and that Meerut C.I.D. was responsible for his arrest.
In the first place, there is Exhibit Ka 4 which is a receipt granted by the respondent Boota Singh to Inder Singh for the advance of Rs.
There was thus numberreason for them to depose falsely against the respondents.
The witness also says that the total price settled between the parties was Rs.
Apart from this, there is the oral evidence of P.W. 2 Inder Singh, P.W. 8.
P. Uniyal and o. P. Rana for the Appellant.
The witness was subjected to a searching cross examination, but numberhing of importance appear to have been elicited.
Boota Singh is also companyvicted under section 419 I.P.C. 471 read with section 465 I.P.C. and section 471 read with section 466 I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, one year and four years respectively.
The respondent Boota Singh whom the witness i identified later at a T.I parade settled the hiring charges at Rs.
Thereafter the so called J. P. Singh went inside the office and the witness remained outside and waited right up to 6 in the evening but P. Singh did number return.
In fact P.W. 9 Anand Singh had identified Raghubir Singh also.
At the time of negotiations with Raja Ram Narain Rane, Boota Singh gave out his name as J.P. Singh and represented that he was son of P., Bareilly.
It is, therefore, clear that the statement of the witness be fore the companymitting companyrt was true and he is falsely resiling from the same in order to protect the respondent.
The respondent had given out his name as one K. Sharma.
It appears however that some discrepency in the chassis number and the number of the engine was found out which raised a serious suspicion regarding the genuineness of the car and the matter was reported to the I.D. by P.W. 62.
He demanded Rs.
Dola Singh is called Jaideo Singh as well.
Apart from the question as to whether these witnesses companyrectly identified the respondent or number, there was sufficient proof of the execution of Exhibit Ka 4.
In cross examination he admitted that he did number make any entry as to the arrest of Asa Singh on 6 1 64 in the General Diary, that he left the accused at the Police Station without getting any entry made because it was the work of the officers.
It number necessary for us to dwell on this aspect of the matter, because that is the subject matter of another case.
Thus, shorn of the details Ram Lal companyroborates the statement of the respondent Boota Singh in the companyfession regarding the transaction, whether the earnest money was Rs.
Thereafter the respondents took off the clothes of the deceased and set fire to them and left the dead body in the same companydition.
S. K. Bagga and Mrs. S. Bagga for the Respondents.
The evidence of P.W. 29 Balwant Singh and the insurance form clearly establish that the car which had carried these three persons reached Ambala on the 13th December, 1963 as stated by Balwant Singh W.29.
16,200.
Thus, it would appear that two independent witnesss from Bombay, viz.,
Thereafter the respondent Boota Singh and Trilok Singh went to R.T.Os office, Raghubir Singh having stayed back at the hotel.
At a I. parade held on 9 3 1964 at Dehra Dun Boota Singh was identified by P.W. 2 Inder Singh and P.W. 14 Jagir Singh as the person who had approached him for taking the taxi on hire.
He knew these persons from before except respondent Boota Singh whom he identified at a validly held T.I. parade and thereafter in the companyrt of the companymitting Magistrate.
The C.I.D. Police, Bombay thereafter took the car into custody along with all other papers.
On 14 12 63.
The shop of Jaideo Singh is in front of my shop.
The bargain was finally struck and Inder Singh P.W.2 agreed to provide Boota Singh with his taxi at the rate of Rs.
Boota Singh went to the Punjab Taxi Stand and had a talk with Inder Singh for hiring a taxi and was ultimately successful in persuading Inder Singh to give the taxi to him on hire at the rate of Rs.
1200/ as earnest money to Hans Raj.
The finding of the High Court on the question of motive appears to be against the weight of the evidence on the record.
He admitted that he used to get entries of arrival and departure of accused made at the.
to Shri D. Silva and the motor vehicle Inspector P.W. 30 Gulzar Singh deposes that he was attached to the crime branch of the C.I.D., Bombay in December.
The High Court seems to have rejected this important document mainly on the ground that it was number mentioned in the report filed by P.W. 1 Harcharan Singh, brother of the deceased who had lodged a written report at the Police Station Dalanwala, Dehra Dun stating therein that the respondent had hired the taxi at the rate of Rs.
Thus, the facts mentioned in the receipt fully companyroborate the statement of the respondent Boota Singh mentioned above and the fact that the signature of the respondent Boota Singh tallied with the signature which he had made on this document is an intrinsic proof of the genuineness of Exhibit Ka 4.
Out of those four men, two men were number known to me.
The witness then took the documents from the T.Os office including the driving licence and the insurance certificate etc.
On 17.12.63 he met the three persons at National Petrol Pump, Bombay with a 1962 model Fiat car having number plate bear ing number UPM 3236.
The High Court seems to have brushed aside the evidence or Ram Lal merely on the ground that there was numberdocumentary evidence to show that there was any negotiation between the parties before the sale deed was executed and held that the evidence of Ram Lal was number sufficient proof of the fact that Asa Singh was in any manner companycerned with the land purchased by Bal Singh.
