1985 (7) TMI 374

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... declining leave to the appellant under Sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the CrPC to appeal to the High Court against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh acquitting the respondent. 2. The respondent, Dharam Singh and his father, Karam Singh were charged for an offence Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Vinod Kumar. In addition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he held that it was not sufficient to establish the charges beyond doubt against the accused, and he acquitted them. The appellant, the Chandigarh Administration, applied to the High Court for leave to appeal, but the application was summarily dismissed. Against that order this Court granted special leave to appeal confined to the case against the respondent, Dharam Singh. 3. We have heard lea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the prosecution witnesses to which the learned Sessions Judge has drawn pointed attention and, to our mind, it is difficult to find fault with his appraisal of the evidence. The evidence and circumstances may conceivably give rise to the suspicion that the respondent was involved in the incident, but suspicion cannot serve as evidence. The High Court was justified in refusing leave to the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X