IMPORTANT POINT
Enmity is a double-edged weapon as it may provide a motive for crime as also for false implication.

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-Daleep Singh, the appellant before us, and seven others were arraigned before the Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad for rioting, murder and other allied offences. During pendency of the trial one of them, namely, Jahangir Singh, died. The trial ended with conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and acquittal of the other six. Aggrieved by his conviction the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal at his instance.

2. According to the prosecution case, at the time the incident, with which we are concerned in this appeal, took place a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amroha, between the appellant, who is a resident of village Bhankori, and Teka Yadav of village Ram Sarai. On May 11, 1977, a date fixed for hearing of the above proceeding, Teka Yadav accompanied by his village Pradhan Sish Raj Singh (PW 4), his co-villager Ashok Kumar (PW 1), his (PW 1 s) uncle Ram Pal (the deceased) and friend Veer Singh (PW 2) went to Amroha in a car, which belonged to and was driven by Ram Kumar, for pairvi in that case. On their way back from Court Teka Yadav parted company at Amroha and the other four continued their journey in the same case. Near the bus stand of village Umori, one of its tyres got punctured. Leaving the car there they got into a but which came from the side of Amroha. In that bus they found the eight accused person sitting armed with gun and other weapons. After they got into the bus the appellant asked the driver to proceed but Ram Pal requested the driver to wait awhile as one of their men was still to board. Over this issue a quarrel ensued between Ram Pal and the appellant. In course thereof the other accused persons got up from their seats and started abusing Ram Pal. Immediately thereafter the appellant fired at Ram Pal who fell on his seat and died. The other accused persons also started assaulting them with kirpans and other weapons. To save their lives, when Ashok Kumar and Veer Singh were about to get down from the bus two of them fired at them as a consequence whereof Veer Singh sustained injury on his thigh. All the accused persons then ran away.

3. Ashok Kumar prepared a written report about the incident and accompanied by Sish Raj Singh and injured Veer Singh went to Chajlait Police Station to lodge the same. S.I. Anil Kumar registered a case on that report and took up investigation. He sent Veer Singh to the District Hospital, Moradabad for treatment and then proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with Ashok Kumar and Sish Raj Singh. He held inquest upon the dead body of Ram Pal, which was lying inside the bus and sent it for post-mortem examination. On completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Session.

4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and contended that he had been falsely implicated out of enmity. In support of its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses but no witness was examined on behalf of the defence.

5. Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Ashok Kumar (PW 1), Veer Singh (PW 2), Sish Raj Singh (PW 4) and Ram Nath (PW 9) figured as eye witnesses, Mahendra (PW 7), the conductor of the bus in question was also examined by the prosecution to give an account of the incident but he turned hostile. The trial Court held that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 so far as it sought to prove that the appellant fired at Ram Pal as a result of which he died could be safely relied upon as it stood corroborated by the medical evidence. Since their evidence regarding the roles of the other accused in the assault on Ram Pal was not corroborated by medical evidence the Court gave them the benefit of doubt. As regards the assault on Veer Singh for which a charge under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC was framed against t