JUDGMENT

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.

(1) THIS order will dispose of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2505 of 1990 filed by Didar Singh and Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 621 of 1992 filed by Satnam Singh son of Fauja Singh and Avtar Singh son of Anup Singh.

(2) SPECIAL leave granted in both the petitions.

(3) ALL the three were convicted by order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, dated 24/02/1988 under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and were sentenced by a separate order of the same date for imprisonment for life. During trial Didar Singh, appellant, was on bail. All the three filed a criminal appeal before the High court of Punjab and Haryana and a division bench of the High court by the impugned judgment dated 7/05/1990 retained the conviction and sentence of all the three and dismissed the appeal.

(4) THE case was based on the circumstantial evidence as there was no direct evidence of the eyewitnesses in the case. The High court classified the circumstantial evidence into four parts as under:

"(I) Oral evidence of Attar Singh Public Witness 2 real brother of the deceased that the deceased was called by two out of the three accused Satnam Singh and Avtar Singh from his house in village Anchia around 4.00 p.m. on 17/08/1986 and left his house with them;

(II) that the three accused and the deceased were seen together late in the evening on 17/08/1986 by Multan Singh Public Witness 3 and Om Parkash Public Witness 6 when all the three accused were beating the deceased with slaps and kicks;

(III) of all the three accused having taken the deceased towards the dera of Fauja Singh, father of Satnam Singh accused thereafter when the two witnesses aforesaid asked the accused not to beat the deceased; and

(IV) of the dead body of the deceased having been found lying on a cot inside a kotha of the dera aforesaid."

(5) IT was argued by Mr Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant Didar Singh, that the first circumstance was not applicable to Didar Singh as he had never gone to the house of the deceased and only Satnam Singh and Avtar Singh had gone to the house of the deceased and brought him. It was further submitted that both the eyewitnesses, Multan Singh Public Witness 3 and Om Parkash Public Witness 6, had seen the appellants in the moonlit night from a considerable distance. The fields were separated by a drain and the incident was supposed to have occurred in the fields of Satnam Singh who had a dera in village Bansa. The deceased belonged to village Anchia. The incident was of 17/08/1986 and the two PWs, who were eyewitnesses i.e. Public Witness 3 and Public Witness 6, are supposed to have seen the incident at 8.00/8.15 p.m. when all the three appellants were supposed to have been seen along with deceased by the witnesses.

(6) THE case of the prosecution, as per the report of Attar Singh, was that they were three brothers and he is the eldest. He had two other brothers, namely deceased Kidar Singh and Jagdish. Kidar, deceased, was 35 years old and was unmarried. There is a village Bansa which adjoins the revenue estate of village Anchla. These two villages are separated by a drain. He also stated that they have 4 killas of land situated in village Anchia along the drain which used to be cultivated by the deceased Kidar. At a distance of about 1 killa from the said drain in village Bansa, there is a dera of Fauja Singh, who is a father of the appellant Satnam Singh. Fauja Singh had some agricultural land at this dera. Due to the situation of their land and the dera of Fauja Singh there was a lot of love and affection between appellant Satnam Singh and his deceased brother Kidar. They used to meet quite often and have drinks. Avtar Singh appellant is the son of the real sister of Satnam Singh whereas Didar Singh appellant is the grandson (daughters son) of Fauja Singh but he was not very certain. Didar Singh is also a resident of v