BHAGWAN SWARUP Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case we gave special leave because in the petition filed by the appellant through jail it was alleged that his advocate was not heard in the case because he was busy in another case in another court and arrived too late to argue the murder reference and the appeal before the High Court. We had issued Notice to the Government to show cause why special leave should not be given but the Government did not inform us about the true state of affairs. Now, the learned Advocate for the State of U. P. has read to us a letter from the Govermnent Advocate who argued the appeal and murder reference before the High Court, stating that the facts as stated in the petition are not true. But in order to avoid delay resulting from an enquiry into this matter we decided to hear the case on merits. We had appointed a counsel amicus curiae and he was ready to assist us.

(2.) He has taken us through the evidence and he has urged certain submissions which we will presently notice. It has not been shown to us by the learned advocate that there is any case for disturbing the concurrent findings of the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court.

(3.) The prosecution story which has been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court is as follows: