The rule of caution which requires corroboration to evidence of interested witnesses cannot be treated as an inflexible principle which can be mechanically applied to all cases.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : The three appellants, Darya Singh, Rasala and Pehlada, along with their brother Ratti Ram were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, under section 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed the murder of Inder Singh in the village of Petwar in the early hours of the morning of the 2nd June, 1960. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Ratti Ram, because he held that the case against him had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. He, however, convicted the three appellants and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. This order of conviction and sentence was challenged by the appellants by preferring an appeal before the Punjab High Court. The High Court agreed with the conclusion of the learned trial judge and dismissed the appeal. The acquittal of Ratti Ram was challenged by the State but the State s appeal was dismissed and Ratti Ram s acquittal was confirmed. The appellants have come to this Court by special leave and on their behalf, Mr. Bhasin has contended that the High Court was in error in confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed against the 3 appellants by the trial Judge.

2. The facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants lie within a very narrow compass. It appears that on June 2, 1960, before sun-rise the victim Inder Singh was returning towards his house after relieving himself of the call of nature. When he came near the Baithak of Kishan Lal Jat, he was suddenly attacked by the three appellants. Darya Singh had a lathi and Rasala and Pehlada had gandasa each. The prosecution had alleged that Ratti Ram had also joined in that act. All the assailants inflicted serious injuries on Inder Singh as a result of which he died. While he, was being assaulted, Inder Singh raised an alarm in consequence of which his brother Dalip Singh, his wife Dharam Devi and his son Shamsher Singh rushed to the scence of the offence. They, however, had not the courage to go to the rescue of the victim, because they were afraid that they would themselves be assaulted. At the time of the assault, Darya Singh fired shots in the air to frighten people. After the assailants left the scence of the offence, Dalip Singh, Dharma Devi and Shamsher Singh went near the victim, but found that he was dead. First Information Report about this occurrence was then sent and that set the investigation into motion, as a result of which the three appellants and their brother Ratti Ram were arrested and put up for trial for offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of three eye-witnesses, Dalip Singh (P. W. 2), Shamsher Singh (P. W. 3) who is a student of the Engineering College, Ludhiana, and Dhararm Devi (P. W. 4). These three witnesses gave a consistent account of the attack on Inder Singh which they witnessed in front of their house and stated how each one of the three appellants took part in the assault. Hira Singh (P. W. 5) who is Lambardar of the village, reached the scene of the offence, after the victim had been murdered. When he reached the scene of the offence, he was told by Shamsher Singh about the assault and was, also given the names of the assailants. The, learned tria1Judge believed the three eye-witnesses, but was not inclined to act upon the evidence of Hira Singh. The High Court has believed the three eye-witnesses as well as the evidence of Hira Singh. The High Court thought that the failure of Dalip Singh to refer to the arrival of Hira Singh in the first information report did not introduce any infirmity in the evidence of Hira Singh himself, and it has observed that Hira Singh s presence on the scene soon after the occurrence is established by the fact that he has signed the inquest report which was prepared by the Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurbux Singh on reaching the scene of the offence at about 9 A.M. In considering the evidence of these witnesses, the High court took into account the fact that some inconsi