STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. PARAS NATH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by

(2.) THE State of THE U. P., the appellant in this appeal by special leave, assails the judgment of the Allahabad High court, dated 18/05/1970, acquitting on appeal the six respondents in this court who were convicted by the court of the first Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh on 1/09/1969, of various offences under the Indian Penal Code. THE accused Paras Nath Singh, Ramendra Pratap Singh, Hari Saran Singh and Lal Pratap Singh were sentenced to death under S. 302, read with S. 149, 1. P. G. THE accused Surendra Pratap Singh and Shiva Pratap Singh were also convicted under the said S. but sentenced to life imprisonment. Leniency was shown to them by the Trial court because Surendra Pratap Singh was stated to be a budding lawyer and Shiva Pratap Singh, being of tender age (15 or 16 years old), was considered to have apparently been misled by his relations. Excepting Surendra Pratap Singh and Hari Saran Singh, the remaining accused were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year each under S. 147, 1. P. C. THEy were further convicted under S. 148, 1. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Accused Paras Nath Singh was in addition, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 379, 1. P. G.

(3.) IT appears that after the examination of P. Ws. 1 and 2 the prosecuting counsel applied to the Trial court staling that Mahabir Singh, Shiva Pratap Singh, Ranmast Singh and Jagdish Bahadur Singh were present in court but as the prosecuting counsel had reason to believe that they would not speak the truth, they were not being produced as witnesses by the prosecution. IT was suggested that they could be examined by the court under Section 540, Cr. P. G. if considered, proper or the accused persons could examine them in their defence, if they so liked. On this application the counsel for the accused persons recorded a note opposing the suggestion and describing the allegation against the witnesses as baseless. S. 540, Gr. P. G., according to the defence counsel was inapplicable and he also declined to examine these witnesses in defence. The said witnesses were in these circumstances discharged by the Trial court on 9/07/1969.