The court emphasized the importance of analyzing the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness statements and dying declarations, in determining the guilt of the accused. The court also highlighted the admissibility of evidence under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The appellants are father and son and live in village Patrasi. The deceased Sohanlal also lived in the same village. He is said to have been murdered on the morning of December 2, 1959, after sun-rise. About two years before the incident one Sunder had filed a criminal case against the deceased. In that case the present appellants had helped Sunder against the deceased. The deceased was acquitted. One Chetram was a witness for the deceased in that case. Later on, Tori Singh appellant attacked Chetram with a spear and Chetram made a report in that connection against Torisingh. Sohanlal was helping him in that matter, and in consequence there was enmity between Torisingh and his father Budhi Singh, appellants, and the deceased.

2. It is said that on the morning of December 2, 1959, the deceased was going to the fields outside the village in order to ease himself. He passed by a platform which is on a cross-road in the village. The appellants were sitting on the platform, Tori Singh carrying a pistol with him. As the deceased passed by the platform, Budhi Singh instigated Tori Singh to shoot him down. Thereupon Tori Singh shot at sohanlal who was hit in the lumber region. Sohanlal then ran towards his house while the two appellants fled away. Sohanlal was thereafter taken to the police station where he made a report against the appellants. He also made a statement before the investigating officer and his dying declaration was recorded by a magistrate. Sohanlal died on December 3, 1959. The appellants had absconded during investigation. They were prosecuted after their arrest.

3. The appellants did not dispute that there was bad blood between them and the deceased; but their case was that they were not responsible for this murder and had nothing to do with it.

4. The main evidence against the appellants consisted of the statements of four witnesses, namely, Babunath, Chhannu, Itwari and Khamani, and the dying declarations made by the deceased before his death. The Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case relied on the evidence of Babunath, Itwari and Khamani and on the dying declarations; he did not, however, place reliance on the statement of Chhannu. He found the two appellants guilty under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced Tori Singh to death as he was the man who had shot at Sohanlal and Budhi Singh to imprisonment for life.

5. There were two appeals to the High Court by the two appellants and the learned Judge also made a reference for confirmation of the sentence of death. A suggestion was made during the course of trial that one Chhiddu was responsible for the murder, particularly as he was said to have made a confession. Chhiddu was, however, not examined by the trial court. The High Court, therefore, in the interest of justice, examined Chhiddu and took his statement into consideration along with the prosecution evidence in order to judge the guilt of the appellants. The High Court agreed with the trial court in its conclusion that Babunath, Khamani and Itwari were credible witnesses and reliance could be placed on the dying declarations made by the deceased. It further accepted the evidence of Chhannu which had not been relied upon by the trial court. It considered the evidence of Chhiddu and was of opinion that that evidence was false. It therefore dismissed the appeals and confirmed the sentence of death passed on Tori Singh after making slight modification in the sections under which the convictions were recorded. The application of the appellants for leave to appeal having been dismissed, they obtained special leave from this Court; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

6. The main point urged on behalf of the appellants before us is that if one looks at the sketch map Ex. Ka-9 on which the place where the deceased is said to have been hit is marked and compares it with the