On Mange Ram and the four appellants herein were charged under section 302 read with section 149 and Section 148 of the Penal Code for causing the death of one Des Raj at about 10 a.m. on July 4, 1960.
The Trial Judge accepted the evidence of Chandgi Ram and the four witnesses, who claimed to be the eye witnesses and companyvicted all the 5 accused.
Daryao Singh thereupon went, to the police station leaving Chandgi Ram at the shop and lodged the First Information Report where in he set out the names of the appellants and Mange Ram as perpetrators of the crime and also the names of Chandgi Ram and the other witnesses as persons who had witnessed the incident.
This was done inspite of the evidence of Piara Singh D.W. 1, the Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer and Man Singh, D.W. 2 both of whom testified to the presence of Mange Ram at the office of witness Piara Singh that morning.
It was said that immediately after the incident, Chandgi Ram rushed to the shop of Daryao Singh at Sonepat 6 miles away and narrated the incident to him.
There was, besides, political rivalry in respect of the Panchayat elections between the parties.
Hot words were then exchanged between the two.
As it very often happens, this bitterness was sparked of by Dharam Singhs buffalo staying into Des Rajs field on the previous day.
If, on the other hand, Chandgi Ram was number present and Daryao Singh on companying to know of the murder thought that an opportunity had become available to him to implicate the appellants and Mange Ram, there was scarcely any necessity for him to invest the story of Chandgi Ram having companye to him and of Chandgi Ram being an eye witness.
According to the prosection, the relations between the said Mange Ram and the appellants on the one hand and the deceased Des Raj and his companysin, Daryao Singh, on the other were strained for a number of reasons, one of them was that Mange Ram suspected that his father, Gumani Ram, had been killed by the deceased, Des Raj.
This incident was testified by Chandgi Ram, the nephew of Des Raj, who was said to be following the cart of the deceased and by witnesses Sultan, Bhialle Ram, Lachhi and Raghbir, who were either in their cattle enclosures or at the well nearby.
Mange Ram and appellant Deep Chand are brothers.
The trial Judge was of the view that although on that evidence Mange Ram companyld be said to be in that office that morning, that evidence was number enough to exclude the possibility of his having returned to the village in time to participate in the crime alongwith the appellants.
Appellants Dharam Singh and Fateh Singh are also brothers and appellant Mohinder Singh is the son of Dhararn Singh.
As regards Daryo Singh having thus got the opportunity and using it for falsely implicating the appellants and fabricating a case with false witnesses against them, one Chandgi Ram was found to have been present at the time and place of the incident, it companyld hardly be companycei ved that either he or Darvao Singh would allow the murderers of Des Raj to go scot free by substituting them for the appellants only to satiate their antagonism against them.
This appeal is by special leave against the said companyviction and sentence.
