STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. VED NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of U.P. on being dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad rendered in Criminal Appeals Nos. 253 and 256 of 1979, setting aside the conviction of the appellant under S. 302 read with S. 34, IPC. and the sentence of death imposed by the Trial Court, has preferred this appeal. It may also be pointed out in this connection that the reference under S. 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the learned Sessions Judge which was numbered as Capital Sentence Case No. 7 of 1979 for the confirmation of the death sentence under S. 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected by the High Court.

(2.) The respondent Vad Narain and 8 others were charged on the allegation that on 24th March 1978 at about 9-10 P.M. in the village called Saurmau P. S. Kotwali in Sultanpur formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object the said unlawful assembly the respondent, Vad Narain, committed the murder of Narender Pratap Singh, the deceased herein, by stabbing with a knife and they also caused the evidence of the commission of that offence of murder to disappear with the intention of screening the offenders from legal punishment by throwing the body in a canal. Or the above allegations the respondent and 8 others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with S. 149, IPC and under S. 201, IPC. The Trial Court convicted the respondent alone under S. 302, IPC read with S. 34, IPC and S. 201 and sentenced the respondent to the extreme penalty of law, namely, the death and also under S. 201, IPC to four years rigorous imprisonment respectively with the direction that the sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment should merge with the sentence of death. However, the Trial court found the other 8 accused not guilty of the offence and acquitted them. It was only by way of challenging the conviction and sentence, the respondent preferred his Jail Appeal No. 253/79 and another appeal No. 256/79 through his counsel and the reference was made as above mentioned by the Trial Court. The High Court rendered its common judgment in both the appeals and the reference case which is under challenge.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the recorded evidence and strenuously contended that the High Court has overlooked certain impelling circumstances attending the case and recorded the impugned order of acquittal which is liable to be interfered with at the hands of this Court.