Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. :- The appellant and his two brothers Kewal Krishan and Dharam Pal were charged before the Sessions Judge, Amritsar for the offence of intentionally causing the death of one Dharam Pal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). Briefly the prosecution case was, and here we are cutting out the background and the frills of the incident, that on 20th October, 1969 at about 1.15 p.m. the deceased and his brother Sain Das were proceeding towards Gali Jatan Chowk when appellant, Kewal Krishan and Dharam Pal came from the direction of their house, each armed with a knife. Dharam Pal raised a lalkara that the deceased should not be allowed to escape and opened the attack by giving a knife blow on the head of the deceased. Kewal Krishan then inflicted a knife blow on the chest of the deceased and the appellant plunged his knife in the left flank of the deceased. On receipt of these injuries the deceased fell down and Dharam Pal gave another knife blow on the chest of the deceased after he had fallen down. This incident was seen by Sain Das who was accompanying the deceased and two other persons, namely, Satpal and Manohar Lal also witnessed the incident. These three persons raised an alarm on which the appellant, Kewal Krishan and Dharam Pal ran away with their knives. The deceased died within a few minutes thereafter. A first information report in regard to the offence was lodged by Sain Das at the police station. The police investigated the offence and ultimately charge-sheeted the appellant, Kewal Krishan and Dharam Pal for various offences arising out of the incident.

2. There were three eye-witnesses to the incident, namely, Sain Das, Satpal and Manohar Lal, but out of them only two were examined by the prosecution, namely, Sain Das and Satpal and Monohar Lal was given up as he was won over by the other side. Sain Das and Satpal deposed to the incident as narrated above and the learned Sessions Judge, accepting their evidence in its entirety, held that the prosecution case was sufficiently established against the appellant, Kewal Krishan and Dharam Pal and convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment and so far as Kewal Krishan and Dharam Pal were concerned, he convicted them under Section 323 read with Sec. 34 and sentenced each of them to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Kewal Krishan and Dharam Pal were also convicted under S. 324 and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and the appellant was convicted under Section 324 read with Section 34 and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

3. The appellant, Kewal Krishan and Dharam Pal preferred an appeal to the High Court against the conviction and sentence recorded against them. The High Court felt that there was inconsistency between the medical evidence in regard to the injuries caused to the deceased and the oral evidence in regard to the role played by Dharam Pal in inflicting the injuries and taking the view that they was scope for reasonable doubt, the High Court gave the benefit of doubt to Dharam Pal and acquitted him. However, so far as the appellant and Kewal Krishan were concerned, the High Court confirmed their convictions and since the conviction of the appellant was under Section 302, the High Court maintained the sentence of life imprisonment; but in regard to Kewal Krishan, the High Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from ten years to two years rigorous imprisonment. The appellant and Kewal Krishan both preferred a petition for special leave to this Court. The appellant succeeded in obtaining special leave, but the petition of Kewal Krishan was rejected. The present appeal is in the circumstances directed only against the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant.

4. This being an appeal by special leave, it would not be right for this Court to e