(1) THIS appeal filed by accused Sohan Lal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in criminal appeal no. 2918 of 1979 in which the High Court set aside the judgment of the sessions judge, Agra in sessions trial no. 3/1979 and convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The trial court on consideration of the case had acquitted the appellant and the other two co-accused Sabu and Munna of all the charges.

(2) THE case of the prosecution shortly stated is that on 14.7.1978 Omvir Singh (PW 1), a constable attached to police station, Shahganj, in the city of Agra, had gone for service of certain processes, summons and warrants on parties. When he reached mohalla Namak-ki-Mandi, a crowded locality of the city, another constable Arvind Kumar (deceased) met him, When the two constables were talking to each other they found the three accused persons Sohan Lal, Sabu and Munna and another stranger coming towards them. Their movements aroused suspicion in the minds of the constables. On seeing the constables the three accused persons and the stranger started running. Constable Arvind Kumar (deceased) caught hold of Sabu. At that stage the other accused persons tried to get Sabu released from the clutches of Arvind Kumar (deceased). When they failed in their attempt Sabu whipped a knife and tried to get himself released. That attempt was also unsuccessful. On seeing this the appellant took out his revolver and threatened to shoot Arvind Kumar (deceased) if Sabu was not released immediately. When Arvind Kumar (deceased) did not pay any heed to such threat the appellant fired a shot which hit him. He fired a second shot aimed at constable Omvir Singh that missed him. Arvind Kumar (deceased) fell down injured. On hearing the halla other persons including Puran (PW 2) and Tara Chand (PW 3) reached the spot. The accused persons escaped from the place.

(3) CONSTABLE Omvir Singh immediately rushed to the Shahganj police station and informed S.I. Rajendra Singh Solanki (PW 5). The S.I. accompanied by Omvir Singh rushed to the spot, found injured Arvind Kumar (deceased) lying there. Arvind Kumar succumbed to the injuries on the same day.

(4) S.I. Rajendra Singh Solanki conducted the initial investigation in the case, recorded the statements of eyewitnesses, received the post-mortem report from Dr. J.K. Aggarwal (PW 6). On completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed against the three accused persons under section 302, 307/34 and section 225 IPC. Accused Sabu was also charged under section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

(5) THE accused persons denied any involvement in the incident. They alleged false implication in the case since the appellant had not given a pair of shoes to the 1.0. PW 5 on his demand.

(6) IN course of trial prosecution examined Omvir Singh (PW 1), Puran (PW 2) and Tara Chand (PW 3) as eye witnesses and some other witnesses including Dr. J.K. Aggarwal (PW6) and I.O. Rajendra Singh Solanki as PW 5, PW 2 and PW 3 did not support the prosecution case. They denied to have seen the incident or the accused persons at the time of incident. They were declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution was left with the sole eyewitness Omvir Singh (PW 1) in support of its case. The learned sessions judge in his judgment discussed in detail the evidence of PW 1 since the entire prosecution case rested solely on his testimony. Sifting the evidence in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of the defence that the testimony of PW 1 is neither believable nor acceptable the learned trial judge took note of the statements made by the witnesses to the effect that he had no acquaintance with the accused Sohan Lal and Munna; he had not seen the houses of these accused persons; that he had no personal knowledge that the accused persons were residing in Namak-ki-Mandi; that he had only heard from h