He had two daughters, named Smt.
Even the learned Judges of the High Court, did number go to the length of holding that Ilyas had been arrested inside the house as alleged by P. Ws.
Jai Vcakash awd Ram Swarup Absconded and were proceeded against under Sections 88 and 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
of fright she kept quiet for sometime and raised the alarm again, presumably after she had gone back into her room tethri and chained the door from inside.
He had brought Mahabir in his rickshaw on hire from Khatauli to Bhainsi.
She thought that their servant had companye to take the cart.
The witnesses then saw that Nathu was dead.
Qabooli, he did number immediately companye out of his house.
Reassured, she came out to the Dukarya and found IIyas appellant and his companyaccused Mahabir in the custody of the witnesses.
Ved Singh and Gyan Singh, and then, In their companypany, went to the house of Nathu.
The plea of the accused in his examination under Section 342, Cr.
Qabooli disclosed in cross examination that When she started raising an alarm, one of the intruders silenced her under pain of shooting her dead.
The evidence of P. Ws.
Qabooli P.W. 6 and Smt.
at 3 45 a.m. in the Police Station.
He was waiting with his rickshaw on the road to companylect his hiring charges.
of the deceased was found smeared with ink.
They were further companyvicted under Section 147 Penal Code.
On the night between the 21st and 22nd January, 1968, Nathu Singh deceased was asleep in his Dukarya two door room while his daughter, Smt.
He went out only after the arrival of P. Ws.
The houses of Ved Singh and Gyan Singh were admittedly situated at a long distance from the house of occurrence.
Villagers on suspiction caught him on the road and seized his rickshaw.
They gave him a beating and companyfined him in the kotha.
She called her servant by name.
Police Station Kotwali.
Ranpal, Staya Prakash, Jai Prakash and Ram Swarup succeeded in Tunning away.
This version was specifically and persistently put to P. Ws.
The only firm finding reached was that he had been arrested soon after the incident.
Harphooli.
Mangats house was numberdoubt in the vicinity.
After about half an hour, she heard the voices of the villagers.
She at the same time saw one or two strangers moving inside the room.
Ilyas appellant was holding Nathus hand and helping Ranpal.
It companyvicted Ilyas appellant, Mahabir and JRanpal under Section 302 read with Section 149.
Kha 2 which is an order, dated February 16, 1968, passed by A. D. M. J on an application made by Ilyas on February 14,1968 i.e. , about 23 24 days after the occurrence requesting for return of his rickshaw which had been taken away by the police from the pucca road near Bhainsi.
Brahmanand Sharma, reached the scene of occurrence at 4.45 a.m. He held the inquest and interrogated Gyan Singh P.W. 1 .
He said that he was plying rickshaw on hire.
On receiving this numbere the case was registered .
1, 5 and 9 on one side and the statement of the appellant under Section 342, criminal Procedure companye on the other.
These persons saw the appellant and his companypanions Mahabir, Ranpal, Ram Swarup and Jai Prakash was strangulating Nathu with a safa Ranpal accused was procuring his thumb impression on a sheet of paper.
On appeal by the companyvicts the High Court maintained the companyviction of Ilyas and Mahabir but acquitted Satya Prakash and Ranpal.
P.C. was one of denial of the prosecution case.
Gyan Singh P.W. I , Ved Singh P.W. 9 and Mangat Singh P.W. 5 and others to the house.
Mahabir has number appealed.
He and his rickshaw were taken to the Police Station next morning Appellant is a rickshaw puller by occupation and is, a resident of village Jaooda.
Qabooli who was found Smt.
On parity of reasoning, the account given by these witnesses in regard to the place and manner of the appellants arrest was equally unreliable.
Mangat Singh P.W. 5 , Ved Singh P. W. 9 and Mr. Sharnia, Investigating Officer to whom this defence version was specifically put.
Mahabir and Ram Swarup accused were holding the feet of Nathu.
He took over the custody of Mahabir and Ilyas.
It was added Smt.
In the final analysis the whole case against the appellant with regard to the manner, place and other circumstances of his arrest, had narrowed down into a companyflict between the untrustworthy version of P. Ws.
1, 5, 8 and 9 in cross examination also.The alarm which she had raised earlier, had attracted the villagers, viz.,
At about 2 or 2 30 a.m. , she woke up on hearing a numberse.
The plea set up by the teenaged appellant, who was admittedly a rickshaw puller by occupation, viz.,
He pleaded innocence.
He first shouted to his father for help.
Mahabir and Ilyas were however, caught by Gyan Singh and the other prosecution witnesses.
It may be that he plies a rickshaw but it does number mean that he had brought Mahabir to the village that night and he was wrongly arrested and implicated in this case.
But according to Mangats own statement, on hearing the alarm of Smt.
1, 5 and 9.
The witnesses challenged the miscreants.
Ved Singh P.W. 9 wrote a numbere and sent it to the Police Station, Khatauli, two miles away, through one Qahool Singh.
He searched for the other accused persons but companyld number find them.
The left thumb .
He interrogated P.W. 8 Mangat and Maangey.
Qabooli, was sleeping in the tethri of the house separated by a companyrtyard from the Dukarya.
Satya Prakash, who was armed with a gun, scared them away.
Hence this appeal by Hyas.
At the trial the prosecution examined throe eye witnesses, namely.
that he had brought Mahabir in his rickshaw on hire from Khataxili, and was beaten and arrested by the villagers on suspicion while standing with his rickshaw on the pucca road at Bhainsi, companyld number be called an afterthought, It was asserted by him as early as February 14,1968, i.e. , only 23 24 days after the incident when he made an application to the A. D. M. J for the return of his rickshaw.
Their infirm evidence on this precise point was number companyfirmed by the, testimony of Smt.
Gyan Singh The High Court found that out of these witnesses, Mangat Singh P.W. 5 only was a witness of the vicinity while the other two lived far away.
All that Smt.
Qabooli was residing with her father in this village for a few months preceding the occurrence in question.
Penal Code and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life.
The trial Court companyvicted Satyo Prakash under Section 302 and sentenced him to death.
She raised an alarm, but, on account of fright recoiled into her apartment of the house.
It rejected the plea of Ilyas in these terms The plea of Ilyas is thus without substance.
Satya Prakash and Ranpal Surrenderedin companyrt on January 23,1968.
The facts are these Nithu Singh of village Bhainsi Police Station Khatauli was a soilless old man of 70 years.
This tenuous circumstance, in our opinion was number sufficient to fasten the guilt on the appellant, companyclusively.
S. Sarkaria, J. Ily as, aged 16 years, has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad whereby his Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302/34, Penal Code was maintained.
She did number stir out for about half an hour till she recognized the voices of her company villagers outside.
There upon she went out into the companyrtyard and saw Mahabir and Ilyas in the custody of these prosecution witnesses and others.
