9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (5) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns Judge acquitted him. There was the usual reference to the High Court of Allahabad for confirmation of the sentence. The appellant also filed an appeal. These two were heard together and by its judgment dated July 29, 1958 the High Court dismissed the appeal, accepted the reference and affirmed the conviction and sentence. From this judgment the appellant moved by way of special leave and on December 15, 1958 this Court granted special leave to the appellant. The present appeal has been filed in pursuance of such leave. 2. Sarjiti was the daughter of one Atar Singh by his first wife. Atar Singh lived in village Anta-ki-Garhi, police station Sada-bad. After the death of his first wife, he married Ram Siri, sister of his first wife. Atar S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house of Atar Singh. He was then wearing a dhoti and a shirt and carried something under his arm covered in a piece of cloth. Soon after he was seen coming out of the house, and at that time he was wearing a dhoti and a vest only but no shirt. Ram Siri came back at about 9 or 9-30 a.m. and shouted for Sarjiti. Getting no response she went to the house of one Chandan Singh, brother of her husband, and told Chandan's wife that Sarjiti had gone away and she was going to look for her in the village. Atar Singh himself and his brother came back to the house at about 11-30 a. m. Atar Singh saw that a box was lying open in one of the rooms from which he found some ornaments missing. Their was some bhoosa' (husk of grain) in one of the roo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coming out. There were about six ounces of 'dalia' in her stomach, which was consistent with death having taken place soon after morning breakfast. 3. The defence of the appellant was that he had been falsely implicated out of enmity. It was suggested on his behalf that Mukhia, one of the prosecution witnesses, had illicit connection with Ram Siri; Sarjiti objected to such illicit connection and it was suggested that Mukhia and Ram Siri might have killed Sarjiti and then attempted to foist the murder on the appellant. This was one line of defence. The other line of defence was that there was a quarrel between Atar Singh and some of the villagers on one side and the appellant on the other over the tethering of bullocks in front of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the circumstantial evidence alleged on behalf of the prosecution as correct and sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. The question for our consideration is if the courts below are right in their view that the circumstantial evidence in the case is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended before us that even if the circumstantial evidence said to have been proved against the appellant is accepted as correct, it does not reasonably exclude the hypothesis that some person other than the appellant, namely, the thief who stole the ornaments, might have killed Sarjiti. This is one part of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. The other argument of learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng them a little, if need be, to force them to form part of one connected whole'; see the observations in Reg. v. Hodge, (1838) 2 Lewin 227. It is against the practice of this Court in an appeal by special leave to embark on an assessment of the evidence when two courts have already assessed it and come to concurrent conclusions therefrom. In view of the danger referred to above, we allowed learned counsel for the appellant to make his comments on that part of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which bears upon the question whether the circumstances alleged against the appellant have been fully established. (After discussing the evidence His Lordship concluded): In our view, the circumstances alleged against the appellant have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as suggested that the thief, whoever he might have been, might have committed the murder of Sarjiti. We are unable to regard this suggestion as worthy of acceptance. The learned Sessions Judge did not acquit the appellant of the charge of theft on the ground that some other person had committed the theft of ornaments. He acquitted the appellant of the charge of theft, because the circumstantial evidence on which he relied did not, in his opinion, prove the charge of theft, though it did establish the charge of murder. Unless there is something in the record to indicate that the murder and the theft were committed at two different times, we do not think that the acquittal of the appellant on the charge of theft raises any doubt as to the cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
