Judgment

JUDGMENT :-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment of the High Court. The two appellants in these appeals Gurcharan Singh and Surjit Singh were tried for offences punishable under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They preferred two separate appeals to the High Court and the same were dismissed by the High Court. Hence, these two appeals before us.

3. The prosecution case is as follows :-

Both the appellants and the deceased Narinder Pal and some of the material witnesses belong to Amritsar. The two accused were indulging in gambling. About two months prior to the present occurrence, there was a dispute between the appellant Gurcharan Singh and the deceased Narinder Pal. On 17-5-1979 at about 8.45 p.m. the deceased was at the shop of his father Des Raj (PW 3) and at that time, PW-4 was also present at the shop. The accused took the deceased with them on the pretext of seeing a movie. On that night at about 1.00 a.m. both the accused had a quarrel with him at chowk Guru Ram Dass Sarai. It is alleged that Gurcharan Singh caught hold of the deceased by his neck while the other accused Surjit Singh gave him a knife blow on his thigh. The deceased got himself released and ran towards the street, but both the accused held him and they were alleged to have inflicted stab wounds. PW-6 has seen the occurrence only in its earlier part. But he did not inform anybody and he went away to his house. Next day, in the morning, Sham Sunder (PW-12) saw the deadbody of the deceased lying in the street and he went to inform the father of the deceased. PW-3 who then went to the police station and gave a report after seeing the dead body. The Sub-Inspector, PW-13 went to the place of occurrence, held the inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem. By then the names of the accused were not known. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem, found several incised injuries and opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage.

4. It is alleged that the accused Gurcharan Singh was arrested on 1-6-79 and interrogated and at his instance a watch was recovered from PW-9 a pan broker. According to the prosecution, Gurcharan Singh pledged this watch and signed on the document - evidencing the pledge. Surjit Singh was arrested on 24-5-79 and at his instance a dagger is said to have been recovered. After completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was laid. The accused when examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., denied the offence and. Gurcharan Singh, in particular, stated that his signature was obtained by force on the so-called pledge chit. The trial court relying on the circumstantial evidence and particularly on the evidence of PW 6 convicted them. The appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-6 is a false witness and is of a questionable character and at the beck and call of the police and his conduct is unnatural, and, therefore, it is unsafe to place any reliance on his evidence and that if his evidence is eschewed then the remaining circumstantial evidence is wholly insufficient to connect the accused with guilt.

6. The items of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is as follows :-

(1) That there was an earlier quarrel between the accused and the deceased that is stated to be the motive. (2) On the day of occurrence at 8.30 p.m., the accused came and took the deceased on the pretext of seeing a movie, spoken to PWs-3 and 4. (3) On the same night at about 1 a.m. PW-6 saw the accused and the deceased quarrelling somewhere in the town and he saw Surjit Singh inflicting a stab wound on the thigh and he left the place. (4) A recovery of watch at the instance of Gurcharan Singh from PW 9 and identified by the father as one belonging to the deceased. (5) A recovery of dagger at the instance of Surjit Singh on which the blood stain found to be that of human origin.

7. From