Judgment

DUTT, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, whereby the appellant, Rakesh Kumar, and three other persons were convicted under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC on the charge of murdering one Ved Prakash.

2. The deceased Ved Prakash was the younger Brother of P.W. 3, Bhagat Singh, a Registered Medical Practitioner. Ved Prakash used to work in the clinic of his elder brother, P.W. 3. In the evening of August 26, 1981 both P.W. 3 and the deceased were present in the clinic. The appellant and the other two accused, who were under the influence of liquor came to the clinic. They were all drunk. They told the deceased that he should serve them with liquor, and that if he did not do so, it would be difficult for him to live at Jind. On hearing this, the deceased gave a slap on the face of the accused Dharam Vir and, thereafter, all the three accused went away saying that the deceased would have to bear the consequence.

3. The further case of the prosecution was that on August 27, 1981, P.W. 3 Bhagat Singh, went to see a movie in Kundan cinema hall in the night show. His cousin brother, Sube Singh (P.W. 4), also met him at the said cinema hall. After witnessing the cinema show, both Bhagat Singh and Sube Singh left for their house at about 12.15 a.m. On their way home, when they reached near Gurdwara Teg Bahadur, they heard the shrieks of Ved Prakash "Bachao Bachao". On hearing the shrieks, both of them ran towards the direction of the shrieks and when they reached the spot they found that the accused Jogi Ram and Dharam Vir had caught hold of the deceased and Rakesh, the appellant, was giving knife blows to him. On receipt of the knife blows, the deceased fell down on the ground and the two other accused ran away from the place of occurrence with their respective knives. Ved Prakash died on the spot. The two witnesses gave them a chase, but they could not catch hold of them. P.W. 4, Sube Singh, was left behind to guard the dead body of Ved Prakash. P.W. 3, Bhagat Singh, himself went to the Police Station where he made a statement before P.W. 8, Mange Ram, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at 2.00 a.m. The formal FIR on the basis of this statement was lodged at 2.30 a.m. After the completion of investigation, the appellant and the two other accused were sent up for trial.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant and the two other accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and the two other accused under S. 302/34, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

5. The appellant and the other two accused preferred separate appeals to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against their convictions and sentences. The High Court, however, affirmed the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and dismissed all the appeals. The appellant, Rakesh Kumar, has only preferred this appeal by special leave against his conviction and sentence.

6. In this case, the two eye-witnesses were P.W. 3, Bhagat Singh, the elder brother of the deceased, and his cousin, Sube Singh, P.W. 4. The only point that has been urged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that as the place of occurrence was dark and the electric tubes, which were fitted on the two electric poles near the spot were lying fused, it was not possible for P.Ws. 3 and 4 to identify the assailants of the deceased. It appears that at the trial much endeavour has been made by the appellant and the other two accused to prove that on the day of occurrence there was- no electric light, as the electric tubes were lying fused at the time of occurrence. The accused had examined a defence witness, Mange Ram (D.W. 1), an Electrician of the Municipal Committee, Jind. His evidence is