On the central issue arising in the case, the Sessions Court found This direct evidence taken as a whole proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Sukh Ram along with two other companypanions had gone to Chunni Lals shop at that time and one of his companypanions fired at Chunni Lal with a pistol while Chunni Lal was closing his shop.
The Sessions Judge believed all the witnesses.
witnesses, discloses an awareness on his part of the substance and true nature of the allegations levelled against him.
Radhey Shyam, Puran Mal and Devi Prasad to prove its case against the aforesaid accused.
P. C. questioned him in regard to his participation in the crime along with his companypanions, number along with the two named companyaccused.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 28th January 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Mukherjee, A. T. M. Sampath and E. C. Agrawala, for the appellant.
Though the charge, companyfines participation in the crime to three named individuals, evidence was led to show that Chunni Lal was murdered by the appellant and two other persons, the fatal shot having been fired by one of these two.
have winnowed out all evidence which companyld legitimately be objected to by the appellant and have held that the remaining evidence clearly brought home the guilt to him.
P. Uniyal and O. P. Rana, for the respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DWIVEDI J. Three persons, Mahendra Singh, Lakhan Singh and the appellant Sukh Ram, were tried for the murder of one Chunni Lal under s. 302 read with s. 34.
He was shot dead on 9 3 1967 at about 10 30 p.m. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Sunder Lal, a relation of the deceased.
The fact that they were named, excludes the possibility of other persons to be in the appellants party and especially when there is numberoccasion to think that the witnesses naming all the accused companyld have companymitted mistake in recognising them.
Only two of the witnesses had named all the thirteen accused.
99 of 1970.
the appellant companyld number be companyvicted with the aid of s. 34 I.P.C. The charge framed by the Sessions Judge reads I Sessions Judge, Aligarh, hereby charge you Sukh Ram S o Hari Ram, Lakhan Singh s o Biri Singh and Mahenara Singh s o Gulab Chand as follows That you on the 9th day of March, 1967, at about 10.30 p.m. in the town of Sasni near the bus stand at the shop of Chunni Lal in furtherance of your companymon intention which was to companymit the murder of Chunni Lal, did companymit the murder of Chunni Lal, did companymit his murder by one of you firing at him with a pistol, as a result of which Chunni Lal immediately fell down dead, and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under s. 302 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and within the companynisance of this Court.
Hence this appeal.
The Sessions Judge acquitted Mahendra Singh, and companyvicted and sentenced the remaining two to imprisonment for life.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The argument in this Court was similar to the one before us.
The learned Judge added The witnesses were from village Seel.
Thus the charge specifically mentions that the murder of Chunni Lat was companymitted by the three accused named therein, namely, MahendraSingh, Lakhan Singh and the appellant Sukh Ram.
The deceased Chunni Lal has a tea stall near the Bus Stand in Sasni.
I. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh.
On appeal the High Court of Allahabad acquitted Lakhan Singh and affirmed the companyviction and sentence of the appellant.
It does number mention that any other persons, known or unknown, were companycerned in the companymission of the offence.
A good number of the accused were from other villages.
At the trial, the heart of the issue therefore was whether there was evidence to prove that the appellant and two others had, in pursuance of their companymon intention, companymitted the murder In fact,may be by reason of the variance between the terms of the charge and the trend of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge while examining the appellant under s. 342 Cr.
in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab 1 four persons were companyvicted under s. 302 read with s. 149 I. P. C. They were tried along with three other persons but those three persons were acquitted by the High Court.
1888 of 1967.
The prosecution examined Sunder Lal,.
Other witnesses did number name all of them.
Judges of the High Court S. D. Khare and Jagmohan Lal Sinha JJ.
In a careful and sifting analysis of the entire evidence, the learned.
