I.D. DUA, J.

(1) IN this appeal by special leave the appellant Chandra Bhal challenges his conviction under S. 302, Indian penal code, for the murder of one Lauwa on the night between March 19 and 20, 1964. He was tried in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur along with his brother Manuwa and his nephew Suresh. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life but his two co-accused who were charged under S. 302, Indian penal code, read with S. 34, Indian penal code, were acquitted by the Trial Court. On appeal the High court confirmed the conviction and the sentence. In this court the only question canvassed before us by Shri Chari learned advocate for the appellant is that the transaction in which Lauwa was shot by the appellant included certain other incidents in which some other persons were also shot dead and wounded. The trials in respect of those other incidents were held separately and this, according to the learned advocate, has prejudiced the appellant in his trial for the alleged murder of Lauwa. The counsel has in this connection emphasised that the appellants acquittal in those cases on the plea of self-defence would also serve as conclusive proof of his plea of self-defence in the present trial. It may, however, be said in fairness to the appellants counsel that he did not invoke the principle autrefois acquit underlying S. 403, Cr. P. C., which is now also embodied in Article 20(2) of the Constitution. No serious attempt was made before us to take us through the evidence in this case in order to sustain the plea of private defence on the existing record, and rightly so, because on appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution it is not the practice of this court to reappraise or re-evaluate evidence for considering the correctness of the conclusions of the High court on questions of facts.

(2) THE first information report in this case was lodged by Viswa Nath, P. W. 4, who seems to be the person with whom the trouble originated. According to this report Chandra Bhal, Manuwa and Suresh went to bis house at 11.00 on the night between March 19 and 20, 1964, Chandra Bhal armed with a gun and the other two with lathis. Addressing Vishwa Nath in an abusive language, Suresh chased him with a lathi injuring bis left hand finger. On alarm having been raised by Vishwa Nath, the people of the village started coming to the spot. Seeing them, Chandra Bhal started firing at them. Vishwa Naths son Har Narain alias Gange who also arrived at the scene was first given a lathi blow by Manuwa and was later fired at by Chandra Bhal. Har Narain ran away but fell down at a little distance. Ghandra Bhal continued to move around firing his gun at random. Gun shots also hit Raj Narain, son of Vishwa Nath, Har Narain, Ganga Ram, Debi Dayal, Jagannath, Bhagirath, Sheo Prakash, Mouji Lal and Lauwa. Lauwa ran and fell down in the chamaraon-ki-gali and died at the spot. The report proceeded to state that Ghandra Bhal was moving in the village with his gun giving out a threat that anyone who went to the police station would be killed. Shri Charis contention is principally based on this report and according to him Lauwa having also been killed in the course of the same transaction which, according to Visha Naths report, was a continuous one, separate trials were improper and have in addition prejudiced the accused in his defence.

(3) IT is true that the first information report does suggest that Lauwas death occurred as a result of gun shots fired during what appears on first impression to be one transaction and originally the prosecution actually contemplated one trial on the basis of that report. But it seems that the prosecutor on fuller consideration thought that all the offences were not committed in the course of the same transaction and the accused also felt that one trial would give rise to confusion and would, therefore, be unfair to him. This ia indicated by the order passed on 9/11/1964, by the learned Addit