MULK RAJ Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of a Divisional Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad convicting the appellant under Ss. 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to death and ten years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is as follows:

(2.) Amar Lal, the deceased, Kishan Lal (P. W. 1) and Dewan Chand (P. W. 2) were the sons of one Mohri Ram. They were living in a house in a locality known as "Chhatta Baroomal" in the city of Saharanpur. At the entrance of the house there is "deorhi'. The door of the "dahliz" of the house of Kishan Lal and the doors of three other houses open into this "deorhi." In the house the brothers lived in different portions. The deceased and Dewan Chand lived on the ground floor while Kishan Lal lived on the first floor known as "chaubarah". There is an open roof over the "deorhi' lying in front of the "chaubarah" and it projects over the gate of "'deorhi". Kishan Lal, Amarlal and Mohri Ram were doing business in 'biris' and cigarettes and their shop was two or three furlongs from their house. On 15-8-1957, Kishan Lal returned from his shop at about 11 p. m. and went up to sleep on the "chaubarah" after chaining the door of his "dahliz". Amarlal, after writing the accounts for the day, came there after some time and knocked at the door of the "dahliz". Kishan Lal came down to open the door and, before doing so, he heard the shout of Amarlal not to do so, as a man with a pistol was standing there, Kishan Lal as also his brother, Dewan Chand, peeping through slits in the door saw three persons, namely Mulkraj, the appellant, with a dagger, Amarath, another accused, with a pistol, and Milkiraj with a knife in his hand, surrounding Amarlal in the "deorhi' and demanding money from him. Both the brothers then went upstairs to their "chhajja" from where they raised an alarm. They also saw the aforesaid three persons grappling with Amarlal and taking him out of the "deorhi' to the open pavement outside, and Mulkraj, the appellant, stabbing Amarlal in the stomach with the dagger and the two accused, Amarnath and Milkiraj; snatching away the money out of his pocket and the gold ring from his finger. The two brothers and a neighbour, one Janendra Das, as also Amrit Lal, who were sleeping on their "chhajjas" and woke up on hearing the cries of Amarlal, came down from their respective houses and saw the accused run away towards the "chhatta Baroomal". Kishan Lal, Janendra Das and Amrit Lal chased them raising alarm. Sunder Lal (P. W. 3),and Rajindra Kumar P. W. 8) also joined them in their pursuit. After going through some lanes, the three accused reached a well wherefrom Milkiraj and Amarnath turned to the left and escaped, and Mulkraj ran straight into a blind lane and was caught by Mohammad Inam (P. W. 5) Ghulam Mohammad (P. W. 7) and others. When questioned by Kishan Lal, Mulkraj stated that Milkiraj and Amarnath brought him there and asked him to stab Amarlal and that he had thrown the dagger in the 'nali' near the place of the occurrence. The appellant was brought to the scene of occurrence and the 'chaddar', Exhibit 2, was found lying in front of the house of Rajindra Kumar (P. W. 8) and the dagger, Exhibit 1, was found in the 'nali'. Kishan Lal took Mulkraj along with the 'chaddar' and the dagger, and handed him over to the police and at about 12-30 in the night he lodged the First Information Report. Amarlal was taken by Dewan Chand to their family doctor, Dr. Ram Prasad, and both of them took him to the District Hospital. The medical officer examined Amarlal and declared him to be dead.

(3.) The First Information Report which was lodged by Kishan Lal an hour after the incident gives in detail the entire incident; it gives the names of the accused, the names of the persons who saw the actual killing, the names of the persons who chased the accused, the names of those who caught hold of the appellant and other relevant particulars. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution sought to establish its case by examining as many as sixteen witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the entire evidence of the witnesses, except their evidence in regard to the extra judicial confession made by Mulkraj, and found Mulkraj guilty under Ss. 302 and 394, Amarnath under S. 302 read with S. 34 and under S.394, and Milkiraj under Section 302 read with S. 34 and under S. 394 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to death and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under the said sections. One Girdhari Lal who was also charged along with the aforesaid accused for abetting them, was acquitted. The three convicted accused preferred two appeals to the High Court. The learned Sessions Judge also made a reference to the High Court for the confirmation of the death sentences passed by him on the three accused. The said two appeals and the reference were heard together by a Divisional Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court disbelieved the version of the witnesses in regard to that part of the prosecution case relating to the actual killing and robbing of the deceased and acquitted Amarnath and Milkiraj. It accepted the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 5 and 7 - learned Counsel for the appellant in the High Court did not challenge the testimony of the said witnesses in regard to the chase and arrest of Mulkraj - and, after rejecting the plea of Shri S. N. Mulla for a lesser sentence, confirmed the conviction made and the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in regard to the appellant herein. Before us the learned Counsel for Mulkraj argued that the learned Judges went wrong in relying upon the evidence of witnesses who were disbelieved in regard to the actual killing and robbing of the deceased and that in any event the evidence of the said witnesses does not bring home the guilt to the appellant.