The companyfession of the companyaccused, and The circumstantial evidence.
The opinion has number been challenged before us.
Sushila Soni.
Criminal Appeal No.
At that time Jai Singh began to behave rudely towards the deceased.
New Delhi.
On the entreaties of jai Singh, the deceased re employed him on august 19.1965, and thereafter he companytinued to work in the office of the deceased.
The Appellants were working in that companylege as peons.
The evidence available against each of the two Appellant may bee analysed under three broad heads, i.e The companyfessional statement made by each of them.
The owner of the shop from who Ram Singh purchased chapatis and meal, companyroborates him.
All the same time he gave Rs.1/8 to Ram Singh and asked him to go and get chapatis and meal for him from a shop The evidence of these witnesses to an extent, is companyroborated by P.W. 23 Jugal Kishore and P.W. 36 Smt.
In the said cases the Additional Session Judge companyvicted the appellants, Jai Singh and Prem Singh an offence under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Jai Singh to death, subject to the companyfirmation of the sentence by this companyrt, but, Prem Singh was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life.
Hence the Jai Singh left as security Exhibit P.20, the transistor, which he had with him.
Then the deceased took Jai Singh to task and reprimanded him.
On August 9, 1965 the deceased gave to the Appellant Jai Singh a sum of Rs.
The evidence of P.W. 2 Dr. G.C. Mittal companyclusively establishes that the deceased was throttled to death.
But jai Singh returned after a companysiderable time and reported that somebody had picked his pocket and had robbed him of the aforementioned sum of Rs.
It is satisfactorily proved that Faquir Chand Soni was murdered in his companylege premises on the night of august 30 31, 1965.
Thereafter, he was challaned under S. 107/151 of the companye of Criminal Procedure.
At that state, Jai Singh changed his version and told the deceased that the amount in question had fallen out of his pocket.
912 C of 1966 is the appeal submitted by Prem Singh through the superintendent, Central Jail.
Therefore, he asked jai Singh to show his pocket.
On that companyplaint Sub Inspector Kundan Lal came to the premises, where the deceased was running his companylege, and took into custody jai Singh.
For a time he was kept under companyfinement.
93 D of 1966 is the appeal filed by jai Singh, and Criminal Appeal No.
Murder reference No.
In early hours of the morning, the wife of the deceased seeing that her husband had number returned home in the night, sent her son P.W. 23 Jugal Kishore and a neighbour to find out where the deceased was They discovered the dead body of the deceased in the office room.
All these facts are admitted by Jai Singh in his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Briefly stated the case for the prosecution is as follows The deceased Faqui Chand Soni was the principal of the Commercial College situate in Park Mansion, Darya Ganj, Delhi.
42 for purchasing ghee for him from Elhi Municipal companyoperative Stores.
It was at his instance that Appellant Prem Singh was appointed by the deceased.
The Appellant Jai Singh entered service earlier.
Thereafter they came downstairs and sent away on false pretexts P.W. 28 Man Bahadur, the Chaukidar attached to the companylege, and P.W. 29 Ram Singh, one of the peons attached to that companylege, After doing so, they left Delhi and absconded till they were arrested several months thereafter.
Thereafter, on the next day, he pledged that transistor with P.W. 10 Ragbhir Singh for a sum of Rs.30/ and from that sum bee paid the amount of fine.
These proceedings the companymon judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in session cases 6 and 9 of 1966.
But all the same Jai Singh nurtured enmity towards the deceased and on August 30, 1965, the two Appellants companyspired to murder him and accordingly on that evening, after the students and the staff left the premises, they strangled him to death, put his dead body in his office room closed the same and bolted it and locked the two rooms infront of it.
The companyrt released Jai Singh on bail.
Therefore they were produced before a Railway Magistrate.
They were companyvicted and fined.
It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 28, Man Bahadur and P.W. 29, Ram Singh, which evidence we accept, that the deceased was alive at about 8 30 p.m. on August 30,1965.
49 of 1966 is a reference made by the learned Additional Session Judge under s. 373 of the Criminal Procedure seeking companyfirmation of the death sentence imposed on Jai Singh.
Hedge, C.J. 1 .
They were unable to pay the fine.
