JUDGMENT

FATHIMA BEEVI, J.:- The apppeal under S. 2(a) of the SC - (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, is directed against the judgment and order dated 5-10-1976 of the High Court of Judicature, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 1972. By the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under S. 302, IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

The police guard consisting of 5 constables, Mr. Suraj Man, Mr. Badari Singh, Mohd. Razi, Mr. Ram Kumar and Mr. Piarey Lal, were posted to guard the bridge. They lived in a tent close to that bridge. Each member had been supplied with a 303 rifle and 50 cartridges. The constables remained on sentry duty on the bridge for two hours each by rotation.

3. Ram Kumar, the appellant, is Kahar by caste. Badari Singh, the deceased, belonging to the upper class used to taunt the accused and say that ever since the low caste people were admitted that the force had become dirty. The accused resented this.

4. On 13th March, 1971, Ram Kumar was on sentry duty between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. Mohammed Razi was to resume duty on 6.00 p.m. A little before 6.00 p.m., Mohd. Razi was putting his uniform inside the tent and was getting ready for his sentry duty. Badari Singh, the deceased, was sitting on a cot inside the tent. Suraj Man, P.W. 5, and Piarey Lal, constable, had gone to bazar to purchase ration for the guards. While Mohd. Razi was busy with his uniform, he heard a sound of gun fire. He saw constable Badari Singh collapsed on the cot. Ram Kumar was standing outside the tent with his rifle. Mohd. Razi shouted and advanced towards Ram Kumar. He made unsuccessful chase of Ram Kumar and returned when he was threatened. Badari Singh was injured. After shortwhile, Suraj Man and Piarey Lal returned to the tent. Mohd. Razi then proceeded to the Police station 7 or 8 kms. away and lodged the first information report. The crime was duly registered against Ram Kumar and was finally charged for offences under Ss. 302 and 409, I.P.C. and 20 (29) of the Police Act. The trial Court acquitted him of the charges under Ss. 302 and 409, I.P.C. but convicted him for the offence under S. 29 of the Police Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. On appeal by the State, the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and convicted Ram Kumar as aforesaid.

5. The prosecution sought to establish the charge of murder against the appellant on circumstantial evidence. The High Court found the circumstances relied on by the prosecution conclusively established and sufficient to warrant the conviction. The circumstances accepted and acted upon by the High Court have been enumerated in the judgment.

6. The High Court has thus found that the appellant had sufficient motive. He had made preparations. He was armed with the rifle and immediately after the occurrence he was seen by P.W. 1 with rifle pointed towards the victim. The appellant escaped with the rifle when the crime was detected. He absented himself from the camp without permission for about 10 days and the circumstances point to his involvement and the explanation offered by him for his absence was false. The High Court was also of the view that the testimony of Mohd. Razi is truthful that he had consistent version and the circumstances corroborated his evidence. The High Court concluded that there is apparently no conflict between the oral evidence and the medical evidence and the circumstances irresistibly lead to the only conclusion that it was the appellant and none else who was responsible for the fatal injury sustained by Mohd. Razi. The High Court considered the reasoning of, the learned Sessions Judge for discarding the prosecution case and dislodged the finding arrived at on valid grounds. The two reasons that weighed with the trial Court for rejecting the evidence of Mohd. Razi had been foun