M. K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) Dhani Ram, Bhagat Ram and Kanshi Ram, the three respondents herein, were tried by the Sessions Judge, Kangra for committing the murder of Amarnath in their village Kui on November 20, 1979 in furtherance of their common intention. By his judgment dated May 17, 1982, the learned Judge convicted Dhani Ram under S. 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, while acquitting the other two respondents. Against the above judgment two appeals were preferred in the High Court; one by Dhani Ram against his conviction and sentence and the other by the State against the acquittal of Bhagat Ram and Kanshi Ram. In disposing of the appeals by a common judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the State and allowed that of Dhani Ram. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh.
(2.) In the absence of any eye-witness to the murder the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances to prove its case: (i) On November 20,1979 Amar Nath met with a violent and unnatural death in village Kui and his dead body was found in a Nala near the house of Labdhi (PW 1; (ii) Amar Nath was last seen near the house of Labdhi in the company of the three accused persons (the respondents; (iii) Dhani Ram disappeared from the village soon after the occurrence; (iv) Dhani Ram, who was then employed in Indo Tibetian Border Police, had come to the village on leave for a month but suddenly he got his leave cancelled on a false pretext; (v) The jersey and the hunting shoes which Dhani Ram was wearing on the day of occurrence were found to bear stains of human blood; (vi) The pajama and the shirt of Bhagat Ram which he was wearing on the day of occurrence were found to contain blood stains; (vii) While in police custody Bhagat Ram made a disclosure statement in pursuance of which he got recovered the watch (Ex. P. 2) which the deceased was having on his person on the day of occurrence; (viii) The pajama, shirt and fleet shoes which Kanshi Ram was wearing on the day of occurrence were found to contain blood stains; and (ix) Amar Nath had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- against the father of Dhani Ram which after his death, was being defended by Dhani Ram and that suit was pending when the occurrence took place.
(3.) On scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the above circumstances the trial Judge held that those mentioned in serial Nos. (i, (iii, (iv, (v) and (ix) stood conclusively proved. As regards the circumstance at serial No. (ii) the trial Judge did not accept the prosecution version that the deceased had been last seen with all the three accused persons. He was however satisfied that Dhani Ram had been seen following the deceased towards the house of Labdhi (PW 1) when he (the deceased) left the house of Indro (PW 3) in the forenoon of the day of occurrence. So far as the other three circumstances were concerned the trial Judge held that none of them was proved. With the above findings the learned Judge concluded that the proved circumstances irresistibly pointed to the guilt of Dhani Ram (Respondent No. 1) and the same were inconsistent with his innocence. Accordingly the trial Judge convicted and sentenced Dhani Ram under S. 302, IPC and ordered acquittal of the other two respondents.;