Judgment

SHELAT, J.:- This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of conviction and sentence of death passed against the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Fatehpur under S. 302 of the Penal Code and confirmed by the High Court, Allahabad. The relevant facts leading to the trial of the appellant on the said charge of murder are as follows:

2. One Chandra Bhushan, a resident of village Muraon, District Fatehpur died several years ago leaving behind him his widow, the deceased Phoolmati, four daughters, all of whom were married during his life time and about 125 bighas of land under his cultivation. The appellant was married to one of the said four daughters, Mst. Dhanpat some twenty years before the incident in question. The youngest of these daughters, wit. Lakshmipati lost her husband within five or six months of her marriage, and then started living with her mother, the deceased Phoolmati. With a view to provide for her daughter; Mst. Phoolmati transferred seventy bighas of the said lands in the name of wit. Lakshmipati. That was about sixteen or seventeen years before the incident. Some two or three years before the incident consolidation proceedings commenced in Muraon. That furnished an excuse to the appellant to come over to Muraon for looking after the interests of Mst. Phoolmati. The appellant thereafter began to manage the lands of Mst. Phoolmati. Having gained her confidence after sometime, he got entered in the revenue records the name of his son, Raj Narain as a cotenant of Mst. Phoolmati. Raj Narain, however, died within a short time thereafter and the appellant wanted in his stead his own name to be entered in the said revenue records. This was objected to by Mst. Phoolmati. Litigation ensued over this dispute between Mst. Phoolmati and the appellant before the Consolidation authorities and the relations between the two became strained. The appellant ceased living with Mst. Phoolmati and shifted to a room in an adjacent temple built by Mst. Phoolmati.

3. According to the prosecution evidence, the appellant was anxious to marry wit. Lakshmipati. The deceased opposed his proposal and got Lakshmipati married to one Sukhraj. The evidence of wit. Lakshmipati was that at about 8 a.m. on the day in question, that is, August 2, 1969, the appellant came to Mst. Phoolmati and demanded a share in the said lands from her. On her refusal the appellant got enraged and left her threatening that he would not allow her lands being ploughed.

4. A little later that morning, the deceased was cleansing a lota at the well situate between her house and the said temple. At that time wit. Lakshmipati was drawing water from that well not far away from her mother. Two other persons, Nanga Pandit and wit. Ram Bishal, were scrapping grass on the roof of Mst. Phoolmati s house, which would be right opposite to the well. At that time the appellant came with his cycle and parked it in the passage near the well. He then went back to his room for a while and came again to where Mst. Phoolmati was squatting cleansing the said lota at the well. Descending the steps leading to the well, the appellant fired a country-made pistol from behind Mst,. Phoolmati. The shot hit her in the back and she tumbled down crying that Janak, the appellant, had shot her.

5. The incident was witnessed not only by writ Lakshmipati, who was nearby, but also by wit. Raja Singh, who, according to his usual practice had gone to the temple that morning and had just emerged out of it. He tried to catch hold of the appellant, but the appellant threatened him with the pistol he had in his hand. The appellant then left on his cycle towards the south. Mst. Phoolmati died almost instantaneously. The alarm raised by her when she was shot and by wits. Raja Singh and Lakshmipati brought some of the neighbours at the spot. It appears that by the time they arrived, the incident was over and the appellant had left on his cycle.

6. Raja Singh lodged the first information report