9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (11) TMI 33X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate of Uttar Pradesh . It was observed by this Court that the grant of a certificate under Article 134(1)(c) is not a matter of course but that the power has to be exercised after considering what difficult questions of law or principle were involved in the case which should require the further consideration of this Court. If the case as decided by the High Court of the face of it did not involve any such questions, then apparently there was no justification for the High Court to certify that the case is a fit one for appeal to this Court. It was further observed that the word certifies in Sub-article (1) (c) is a strong word which requires the High Court to look closely into the case to see if any special considerations arise. If a case does not involve any question of law, then however difficult the question of fact may be, that would not justify the grant of a certificate under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution, because if the High Court has any doubt about the facts of a criminal case, the benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. If, on the other hand, the High Court has no doubt about the guilt of the accused and confirms the order of conviction passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , was one of the several police constables attached to the D.I.G. of Police, Central Range, U.P. He was functioning as his orderly peon and used to drive his car. He along with a number of police constables used to stay in the out-houses with six rooms, attached to the official quarters of the D.I.G. of Police. The appellant, Het' Ram (P.W. 1), Sadhu Ram (P.W. 6), and Ram Lal, constables used to live in some of the rooms of the out-houses. The appellant and Ram Lal apparently were on friendly terms. The appellant used to go to the room occupied by Ram Lal and his wife. The other constables were not living with their families. The prosecution case is that on the night between the 2nd and 3rd February 1954 at about 10 P.M. the appellant and Ram Lal aforesaid together left the bungalow of the D.I.G. on a cycle. Ramlal pedalled on the carrier. They proceeded towards the La Martiniere Ground, which is adjacent to the West of the D.I.G.'s bungalow with pucca roads on the north and west. There is a culvert on the pucca road running east to west on the north of the La Martiniere Ground. The appellant returned alone by about 1 A.M. the same night. The next morning one Jagat Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or, death was due to shock and haemorrhage from the extensive injuries which could be caused by the weapon Ex. XI shown to me . In cross-examination the doctor (P. W. 7) stated that the wounds on the neck could also be caused by a sword. There was a very remote possibility of stab wound having been caused by a spear . 5. As pointed out by the Courts below, the deceased Ramlal was butchered to death in a brutal manner. From the medical evidence it is also clear that the murder took place a few hours after the deceased had taken his night meal some time during the night of 2nd-3rd February, 1954 as alleged by the prosecution and that the karauli (Ex. XI) most likely was the weapon used for causing the multiple stab and incised wounds found on the body of the deceased. 6. At the trial the prosecution adduced no direct evidence implicating the appellant. The case therefore depended entirely on circumstantial evidence which consisted of the following facts: (1) that the deceased and the appellant were last seen going together on a cycle at about 10 P.M. on the night of the 2nd February, 1954 towards the La Martiniere Ground where the dead body was discovered the next mornin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 would not apply to the seizure of the shoes which were being worn by the accused at the time he was with the investigating police officer. The section applies when a search is to be made of a place. It does not apply to the search of a person. In this case the Sub-Inspector saw, the accused putting on the pair of shoes and he seized them. There is no question of search either of a place or of a person. Hence it was not necessary strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 103 of the Code that there should have been two independent search witnesses. But the Sub-Inspector out of abundant caution asked those two rickshaw wallahs to be present as they were the persons most easily available. The Sub-Inspector in spite of his efforts could not get any person from the Minister's quarters to be present at the projected search and most of the occupants of the servants quarters of the D.I.G. of Police were police constables or members of the armed guard. The Sub-Inspector naturally thought that the search witnesses should be persons other than constables or members of the armed guard. 9. In respect of the search of the room occupied by the appellant and the recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
