SHARMA, J - (1.) S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 1975, filed by Poosa Ram and S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 1975, filed by Amia alias Amrit Lal arise out of one and the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, dated 25th October, 1975, by which Poosa Ram was convicted under section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer eight months rigorous imprisonment and Amia appellant was convicted under S. 326/34, I. P. C. and was awarded sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 400/-, and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for four months. By this very judgment another co-accused Ghanshyam was convicted under S. 32/34, I. P. C. and was released after admonition under S. 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Ghanshyam, however, did not file an appeal against his conviction and sentence.
(2.) THE prosecution case against both the appellants may be stated, in brief, as follows: - On the intervening night of 11th and 12th June, 1973, Laxmi Narayan son of Motilal Ghanchi was sleeping inside his house at about 11. 30 p. m. His brother Madan Lal also was sleeping in the house. At that time somebody called for Madan Lal from outside. On hearing the call,, Laxmi Narayan got up from his bed and saw one tempo-rickshaw standing outside his house. He saw one Gal Madan Lal did not come out of the house. Thereupon Ghanshyam went away in the rickshaw. After about half an hour Laxmi Narayan heard another call from outside. He got up and saw two tempo-rickshaws standing outside his house. He further saw that Poosa Ram, Amia and Ghanshyam were standing near the rickshaws. This time also Madan Lal did not respond to their call. The aforesaid persons, thereupon, went away towards Siwanchi Gate. Thereafter at about 1. a. m. there was another call for Madan Lal. Laxmi Narayan again got up and saw Ghanshyam standing by the side of a tempo-rickshaw and calling for his brother Madan Lal. This time Madan Lal responded to the call and came out of the house. As soon as he came out, Ghanshyam asked Madan Lal to accompany him to the shop of a betel-vendor for the purpose of eating betels. Madan Lal refused to go with him. Thereupon, Ghanshyam assured him that he would not deceive him. Madan Lal acted upon his assurance and went away with him towards Siwanchi Gate. After some time when Madan Lal did not come back, Laxminarayan suspected some foul play and started from his house to go towards Siwanchi Gate. As soon as he reached the police outpost, he heard loud cries, i. e. 'being beaten, being beaten'. On hearing the cries, Laxmi Narayan rushed towards 'balaji's temple' and saw Poosa Ram, Amia and Ghanshyam beating his brother Madan Lal, who was raising an outcry that he had been hit with a knife. Laxmi Narayan saw that blood and intestines had come out of the stomach of his brother. Bijai Singh Ladu Ram, Chanwar Lal and Munna Lal were present at the place of occurrence. Some other persons including police-men also reached the spot. Ghanshyam ran away from there while Poosa Ram and Amia appellants were apprehended by the police-men. As Madan Lal was seriously injured, one of the police-man accompanied by Ladu Rom removed the injured to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital. Jodhpur, in a tempo rickshaw. Shortly afterwards, the police-van also reached there and took away Poosa Ram and Amia appellants. Laxmi Narayan rushed to the police station, Khanda Phalsa, to make a report of the incident. At 1. 30 a. m. Laxmi Narayan lodged a verbal report Ex. P. 1 with the police, on the basis of which the Station House Officer, Khanda Phalsa, registered a case under S. 307/34, I. P. G. against the two appellants and Ghanshyam co-accused. The Station House Officer made the usual investigation into the case. He reached the place of occurrence and inspected the site in the presence of Abdul Samad and Devilal Motbirs and prepared site-inspection memo Ex. P. 2 and site-plan Ex. P. 9. He found blood-stained shirt and Baniyan lying on the spot. He seized both these articles vide memo of seizure Ex. P. 3 and sealed them in the presence of Motbirs. Stains of blood were lying on the ground. He took blood-stains of earth vide memo of recovery Ex. P. 4 and sealed it also in a tin. Then he arrested the three miscreants. After his arrest Poosa Ram appellant gave the Station House Officer an information on 19th June, 1973, that he had thrown one knife over the shop of a vegetable-seller and that he was prepared to get it recovered at his instance. The above information was recorded by Station House Officer in a memo Ex. P. 12. Later on, the Station House Officer recovered the knife from the place mentioned in the memo of information in the presence of Mohammad Khan and Nisarkhan Motbirs, vide memo of recovery Ex. P. 13. The knife had no stains of blood on it. It was, however, sealed there and then. The knife was later on sent alongwith other articles to the Chemical Examiner, Jaipur, for analysis. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur, and that of the Serologist (Exs. P. 14 & P. 15 respectively) were received. After collecting necessary evidence, the Station House Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the two appellants and Ghanshyam, co-accused in the court of the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Glass No. 1, Jodhpur, under sections 307 read with 34, IPC. The learned Magistrate perused all the documents furnished by the Investigating Agency under section 173, Cr. P. C. and committed the three accused to the court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, for trial under Section 307/34, I. P. G. The Sessions Judge transferred this case to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jodhpur, for trial according to law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to try the case and framed a charge under section 307, I. P. G. simpliciter against Poosa Ram. The other two accused, namely, Amia and Ghanshyam were charge-sheeted by him under section 307/34, I. P. C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. As many as 12 witnesses were produced from the side of the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused persons. After the prosecution evidence was over, the statements of the accused were recorded under S. 313, Cr. P. C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amrit Lal appellant pleaded that the incident did not take place in the manner stated by the prosecution. He gave a parallel story by stating that he and Poosa Ram were getting their engine repaired by Sohan Mechanic on 12th Road, Sardarpura. At about 12 or 1. a. m. the work was over. Then they hired a rickshaw of Ramjhan for going to their house. While they were passing in that rickshaw near the shop of Adamal at Siwanchi Gate, seven persons namely, Ladu Ram Chanwar Lal, Madan Lal, Laxmi Narayan, Munni Lal, Chimiya and Ganga Ram surrounded their rickshaw and caused it to be stopped. Madan Lal gave two or three lathi thrusts to Ramjhan driver of the rickshaw and then hit him twice or thrice with a short-stick on his neck, after pulling him out of the rickshaw. Then Ladu Ram and Madan Lal caught hold of the clothes of Poosa Ram and began to pull him also out of the rickshaw. Poosa Ram resisted in vain. In the course of pulling him out, his clothes were torn. Amia also was pulled out by Laxmi Narayan and Munnilal and was given a lathi blow. As result of the blow, Amia fell down. Then Munnilal gave him a kick with his shoe near his right eye. Madan Lal while beating Poosa Ram caught hold of his hair and made him sit down, while saying that he would kill the latter. Then Amia rushed to the rescue of Poosa Ram and aimed a blow on the hand of Madan Lal with a knife, The blow accidentally missed the target and hit Madan Lal in his stomach. The police men came there and took away Amia to hospital wherein he was admitted as an indoor patient. He regained his consciousness in the hospital on third day. Amia further pleaded that Madan Lal had beaten him twice prior to this occurrence and had broken his ribs. According to him, Poosa Ram was his partner. So Madan Lal and his companions wanted to do away with Poosa Ram. Similar was the statement of Poosa Ram before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghanshyam set up a plea of alibi and denied to have committed the offence, with which he was charged. The appellants adduced evidence in the defence. They examined Ramzan, D. W. 1, Daulal, D. W. 2 and Dr. P. Dayal D. W. 3 in support of their case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence came to a finding that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the two appellants beyond reasonable shadow of doubt and that there was no occasion for the exercise of the right of private defence of person by the appellants. Consequently, he convicted and sentenced both the appellants in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences the two appellants have filed, separate appeals. As regards Ghanshyam, the finding of the trial Judge was that he had no common intention with the appellants to kill Madan Lal or to cause any grievous hurt to him with a sharp edged weapon like knife but had a common intention to make an assault upon him only. Hence Ghanshyam was convicted under S. 352/34, IPC. As Ghanshyam has not preferred any appeal, it is not necessary for me to consider has case, I have carefully gone through the entire evidence on the record and heard the arguments at length. As common questions of law and facts arise for determination in both these appeals, they are disposed or together by one single judgement. Firstly, it has been strenuously contended before me on behalf of Poosaram that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring guilt home to the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. It was further argued that unless the appellants are proved guilty of the offence of attempt to murder, they are presumed to be innocent and the responsibility to prove their guilt lies squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution, because the general burden is never shifted and it never rests on the accused to establish his innocence. In support of his above contention, Mr. Than Chand Mehta, learned counsel for Poosa Ram appellant, invited my attention to certain circumstances which, according to him, are so probable that a man of ordinary prudence would certainly act upon the supposition that they did exist. The first circumstance that was brought to my notice is that the evidence of the prosecution relating to the pretext on which Madanlal injured was brought to the place of occurrence from his house by Ghanshyam was conflicting. According to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Poosa Ram, Laxmi Narayan, P. W. 3, who is the brother of the injured and who lodged the first information report with the police soon after the occurrence, stated in his deposition that Ghanshyam called out Madan Lal injured from the 'letter's house and asked the latter to accompany him to the market for eating betel leaves. Madan Lal was reluctant to go with Ghanshyam. Thereupon, Ghanshyam assured him that he would not deceive the latter. Madan Lal acted upon his assurance and went away from his house. Laxmi Narayan stated this fact in his first information report also, but Madan Lal injured did not corroborate his brother on this point. Madan Lal's version in the trial court was that he came out of his house in the mid-night at the call of Ghanshyam and was informed by the latter that his brother Bhanwar Lal had met an accident near the temple of Balaji. On hearing the news of accident of his brother Bhanwar Lal, Madan Lal readily accompanied Ghanshyam to the temple of Balaji without wearing shoes and other clothes on his body. The argument of Mr. Than Chand Mehta, learned counsel for Poosa Ram on the basis of this conflicting evidence, is that the story invented by the prosecution that Madan Lal was brought by Ghanshyam from his house to be place of occurrence on one pretext or another is false and that the version given out by the defence that Madan Lal and his companions were already present on the place of the incident at the time when the appellants reached there in a tempo-rickshaw was true and probable. According to the learned counsel it looks like an attempt to conceal the real fact that Madan Lal and his associates, namely, Ladu Ram, Chanwar Mal, Laxmi Narayan, Munnilal, Chinya and Ganga Ram were the aggressors, who encircled the tempo-rickshaw in which Poosa Ram and Amiya appellants were sitting and thereafter pulled out the appellants from inside it for the purpose of giving them a beating. I have critically examined the evidence on this point and have come to the conclusion that the above contention is devoid of force. It is no doubt true that there is variance between the evidence of Laxmi Narayan and Madan Lal injured with regard to the pretext on which Madan Lal injured was taken out of his house by Ghanshyam to the place of occurrence but the other evidence led by the prosecution clearly goes to prove that Madan Lal himself did not reach the place where he was assaulted and that the appellants were seen moving in tempo-rickshaws near about the scene of occurrence prior to the actual assault made upon Madan Lal, Banshi Lal, P. W. 8, clearly stated in his deposition that in the night between 11th and 12th June, 1973, he was deputed at the police outpost Siwanchi Gate for patrolling the area. At about 12. 30 a. m. he saw two three-wheeler tempo-rickshaws moving on the road near grain market, Jodhpur. The three-wheeler tempos were going towards the house of Madan Lal. After about ten or fifteen minutes he came to the crossing of grain market after patrolling the area of Sindhiyon-ka-Bas. At that time he saw one of the tempo-rickshaws standing near the temple. He saw the other rickshaw moving to and from, He asked Poosa Ram and Amiya appellants why they were moving to and from in the tempo-rickshaws. Thereupon both the appellants disclosed to Banshi Lal that their relative had died and that they had come to call on their other relatives. Banshi Lal has been cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the appellants. He was confronted with and contradicted by his previous statement which he gave before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, but no such fact could be elicited from his cross-examination which may tend to destroy his credibility or to impeach his credit. It is no doubt true that in his statement before the Police Banshi Lal did not say that the appellants told him that they had come to call for Madan Lal and that Ghanshyam had gone in another auto-rickshaw to the house of Madan Lal for bringing him but it is conclusively established by the evidence of Banshi Lal that the appellants were seen moving near about the place of occurrence shortly before the incident. The evidence of Banshi Lal negatives the defence version that as soon as Poosa Ram and Amrit Lal appellants came to the spot in a tempo-rickshaw near Balaji's temple, they were surrounded and pulled out of the rickshaw and beaten by Madan Lal and his associates. Apart from the evidence of Banshi Lal, there is another circumstance which lends support to the testimony of Madan Lal injured that he was brought from his house by Ghanshyam to the place of occurrence, where Poosa Ram and Amiya appellants had met him in an aggressive mood. The circumstance is that according to the statement of Ramjan, D. W. I, the appellants boarded the tempo-rickshaw driven by Ramjan at 5th road Sardarpura for going to Kabutron-ka-Chowk. Ramjan, D. W. I admitted in his cross-examination that the usual way for going to Kabutron-ka-Ghowk from 5th Road Sardarpura is through Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, near Jalori Gate and that he was taking Poosaram and Amiya appellants in his rickshaw through Siwanchi Gate of his own sweet will without being asked by them to go by that way. It is not understandable why the appellants had left the usual way and had been going to their house at Kabutron-ka-Ghowk through another way at odd hours in the night. Even assuming that they were taken away by Ramjan of his own accord through Siwanchi Gate, there is no reasonable explanation why the appellants informed Banshi Lal P. W. 8 that their relative had died and that they had come to call for other relatives. In these circumstances, I feel persuaded to hold that the version given out by Madan Lal injured that he was called from his house by Ghanshyam and taken to Balaji's temple on the pretext that his brother Bhanwar Lal had met an accident appears to be true and reliable. Madan Lal had accompanied Ghanshyam to the place of occurrence without wearing shoes and other clothes on his body, because it was quite natural that on hearing about his brother Bhanwar Lal having met an acci-dent, he would have started bare footed there and then alongwith Ghanshyam informer without wasting any time in putting on clothes and shoes. The evidence of Laxmi Narayan P. W. 3 is not credible on this point, because the relations between Ghanshyam and Madan Lal were not cordial and Madan Lal would not have accompanied Ghanshyam at odd hours in the night to the shop of betel seller for the purpose of chewing betel leaves. From a careful review of the entire evidence of Laxmi Narayan, I am convinced that his statement is full of exaggerations and he has uttered lies without the least compunction.
(3.) IN his examination in chief, Laxmi Narayan claimed to be an eye-witness to the actual assault made upon his brother by Poosa Ram with a knife but in his cross-examination he changed his version and admitted that when he reached near Balaji-ka-temple, on hearing voice, he saw his brother Madan Lal lying on the ground and the two appellants being carried away by the police. He was confronted with and contradicted by his first information report Ex. P. 1 and his subsequent statement before the Police Ex. D. 3, wherein he did not state that he had seen Poosa Ram causing a blow to the person of his brother with a knife. When confronted with his previous report and. his statement, he merely deposed that being in a perturbed and terrified state of mind he could not state before the police that he had seen Poosa Ram giving a knife-blow to Madan Lal. Again, he further stands discredited on a material point. IN his deposition at the trial Laxmi Narayan stated that first Ghanshyam had come to his house to call for Madan and thereafter a gap of half an hour the two appellants visited his house in a tempo rickshaw and Poosa Ram called Madan by his name and on hearing the call he (Laxmi Narayan) got up and looked at them from his balcony. Thereupon, both the appellants asked Laxmi Narayan where his brother Madan was. Laxmi Narayan gave them a reply that Madan Lal was lying asleep and then according to him the appellants knocked at the door of his house and went away from there. Curiously enough, Laxmi Narayan omitted to state in his report or subsequent statement that Poosa Ram had called his brother and that some talks took place between him and appellants about Madan Lal. Laxmi Narayan's evidence, therefore, does not inspire confidence. His version that Ghanshyam asked Madan Lal, when the latter came out of his house at the former's call to accompany him to the market for chewing betel leaves appears market to be wholly unreliable. The reason is that at first he claimed to have seen the two talking to each other outside his house, but in the next breath he repudiated his above version and stated that when the talks were going on between Ghanshyam and Madan Lal outside his house, he was lying throughout on his bed. No reliance can be placed on the testimoney of such a witness who has no respect for truth. It was highly probable that Laxmi Narayan did not hear the talks that took place between his brother and Ghanshyam outside his house, because, if he had heard the talks, he would have asked his younger brother not to go to the market in the odd hours of night for the purpose of chewing betel leaves alongwith a person with whom their relations were strained. Consequently, I have no hesitation in believing the statement of Madanlal injured that he was called out and taken by Ghanshyam to the place of occurrence on the pretext that his brother Bhanwar Lal had met an accident. The learned counsel appearing for Poosa Ram vehemently contended before me that the earliest version given out by Laxmi Narayan in the first information report and in his subsequent state ments relating to the pretext on which Madanlal was taken away by Ghanshyam from his house should be given due weight. According to him, Madan Lal was examined after 24 days by the police and had ample time to tell a different tale about the pretext on which he was taken by Ghanshyam to the place of occurrence. The learned counsel argued that Madan Lal did not adhere to the version given out by his brother Laxmi Narayan because he knew it well that no prudent man would believe that he had accompanied his enemy Ghanshyam to the market for chewing betel leaves at odd hours in the night without wearing shoes and full clothes on his person. The above contention has no force, because Madan Lal could not be examined by the police earlier than 6th June, 1973, as Madan Lal's physical condition was serious and he was not in a position to give out any statement before the police. There is no material on the record to suggest or show that he concocted a different story relating to the pretext on which he was taken away by Ghanshyam to the place of occurrence from his house merely because the version given out by his brother Madan Lal on this point was unconvincing. Another contention put forward by the learned counsel for Poosa Ram appellant is that Madan Lal sustained one injury only on his body with a sharp-edged weapon although all the eye-witnesses to the occurrence stated in their depositions at the trial that he was given fists blows and slaps by the two appellants. It was further argued that the evidence of the eye-witnesses was liable to be rejected on this score as it was in direct conflict with the testimony of the medical officer. The above contention also is devoid of force. It is no doubt true that Vijai Singh, P. W. I, Banshi Lal P. W. 8 and Ram Singh P. W. 10 stated in their depositions at the trial that they had seen both the appellants fighting with Madan Lai with fists and slaps but Madan Lal whose statement has been relied upon by the trial court definitely stated that he did not sustain any injury other then the stab wound on his person although the appellants were using their fists and slaps The entire evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the Medical Officer did not find any injury other then the stab-wound on the body of Madan Lal at the time of medical examination. The possibility of slaps and fist blows having not fallen or left any external marks of injuries on the person of Madan Lal at the time of medical examination cannot be ruled out. Hence I do not feel persuaded to brush aside the evidence of the eye-witnesses merely on this score. That Poosa Ram accused was responsible for the knife injury on the person of Madan Lal admits of no doubt. In his statement at the trial, Madan Lal has given a detailed version of the manner in which the occurrence took place. He stated that he was called out of his house by Ghanshyam and was taken to the place of occurrence on a false pretext that his brother Bhanwar Lal had met an accident. As soon as he reached the place of occurrence, he was caught hold of and manhandled by Poosa Ram, Amiya and Ghanshyam. Thereafter Poosa Ram took out a knife from his pocket and hit him in the stomach. Upon receiving a knife-injury Madan Lal cried aloud that Poosa Ram had stabbed him with a knife, As a result of the blow, the intestines came out of Madan Lal's stomach and he fell down and then became uncon-scious Banshi Lal P. W. 8 corroborated the version of Madan Lal injured by stating that the latter was crying that Poosa Ram has stabbed him with a knife. Banshi Lal was a police constable who was patrolling the area. On hearing the noise he had reached the place of occurrence and saw that intestines had come out of the wound received by Madan Lal and that the wound was bleeding. He saw Poosa Ram and Amrit Lal standing there and using criminal force to Madan Lal with their slaps and fists. According to him, Laxman, Ram Singh and others were intervening to save Madan Lal. Similar is the statement of Ram Singh, Head Constable, P. W. 2 who also heard Madan Lal saying that he had been hurt with a knife by Poosa Ram The prosecution examined Bijai Singh, Munni Lal and Laxmi Narayan also to corroborate the testimony of Madan Lal injured, but their evidence has been discarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for reasons mentioned in bis judgment, with which I fully agree. Although Bijai Singh, Munni Lal and Laxmi Narayan claimed to have seen Poosa Ram causing a blow to the stomach of Madan Lal but their evidence is full of contradictions and exaggerations on material points and it is highly risky to rely upon them. They had been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination and were confronted with and contradicted by several portions of their previous statements which they gave before the police during the course of investigation. They could not afford reasonable explanations for the inconsistencies appearing in their two statements. Consequently, I agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge that these persons were not eye-witnesses to the actual assault made by Poosa Ram upon the body of Madan Lal with a knife. As for the evidence of Madan Lal, Banshi Lal and Ram Singh, it may be said that it inspires confidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not succeed in assailing the evidence of Madan Lal injured on any reasonable ground. He however, challenged the evidence of Banshi Lal and Ram Singh on the ground that they falsely stated that they had seen Madan Lal and the two appellants causing first blows and slaps and grappling with each other and that their above version did not find support either from the statement of Madan Lal or from the medi-cal evidence. According to him, Madan Lal received a single knife-injury on his person. If he was beaten by fists and slaps, he would have receive more injuries on his body. I have already dealt with and rejected the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellants while discussing the evidence of Banshilal. I may further add that Ram Singh, P. W. 10 visited the place of occurrence twice. At first he heard a noise coming from the side of Balaji-ka-temple while he was sleeping outside the police outpost Siwanchi Gate. He got-up and went towards the temple and saw that 'marpeet' was taking place between Madan Lal and the two appellants and that several other persons, namely, Chanwar Lal, Bijai Singh, Ladu Ram, etc. were standing there. By 'marpeet' he meant that they were giving slaps and fist blows to each other. As Ram Singh had no other police constable with him, he came back to his out-post at Siwanchi gate and telephoned to Khanda Phalsa Police Station. The telephone was out of order. So he could not talk to the Police at Khanda Phalsa police-station. He than telephoned to Flying Squad Control Room and returned to the place of occurrence. At that time he heard Madan Lal and other persons saying that Poosa Ram had stabbed Madan Lal with a knife. He himself saw that Madan Lal sustained an injury in his stomach and that the wound was bleeding and the intestines had come out. He separated the two appellants and then brought them and the injured to the police outpost. The evidence of Ram Singh appears to be convincing. It is highly probable that before Madan Lal received a blow at the hands of Poosa ram with a knife, he was manhandled for some time by Amiya and Poosaram and during the course of scuffle he also used his hands to avoid his person being caught hold of by the appellants. Madan Lal was brought to the place of occurrence by Ghanshyam on a false pretext. It was quite natural that on seeing the two appellants face to face with him in an aggressive mood, he made some efforts to disengage himself from their grip by using his hands. Hence the version given out by Ram Singh and Banshilal that they saw some scuffle going on between Madan Lal injured and the two appellants appears to be quite convincing. I am, therefore, of the view that the conclusion of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge that Poosa Ram was responsible for the knife injury on the stomach of Madan Lal is correct. Mr. Than Chand Mehta, learned counsel for Poosa Ram strongly contended before me that even if it is held that Poosa Ram was responsible for the knife injury received by Madan Lal on his stomach, the evidence clearly discloses that he had caused the injury in the exercise of his right of private defence and that he is, therefore, entitled to an acquittal. The learned counsel for Poosa Ram relied upon Amzad Khan vs. The State (1), Mod Singh vs. The State (2), Jai Dev vs. State of Punjab (3), Ram Swaroop vs. State (4), Gurbachan Singh vs. State of Haryana (5), Deo Narain vs. State of U. P. (6) and Onkar Singh vs. State of U. P. (7 ). ;