KALUA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was sentenced to death for the murder of Daya Ram by shooting him with a country made pistol. He was also convicted for being in possession of an unlicensed fire-arm under the Arms Act for which offence he was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment. He appealed to the High Court of Allahabad, but his appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence was affirmed. Against the decision of the Allahabad High Court the appellant obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about midnight of 4-7-1954, when Daya Ram was sleeping on a cot on a platform. Near him were sleeping Gokul, Doongar and Jai Sigh, while two women Ratto and Bhuri slept in a room to the north of the platform and adjoining it. The report of the shot fired woke up these people. According to them, they saw the appellant running towards the east. He was accompanied by three others who were armed with lathis. Daya Ram died almost instantaneously as the result of the injuries on his chest and stomach from where pellets were recovered at the time of the post mortem examination. Daya Ram had been short from a close distance because the skin was charred over the entire area of the wound. Near the cot, on which he slept, a cartridge Ex. I, was found which was handed over to the Police Officer when he arrived for investigation. A first information report was lodged at the police station five miles away at 8-10 a.m. on 5-7-1954.

(3.) The motive for the murder, as alleged by the prosecution, was that on the death of one Bhai Singh the appellant hoped to become guardian of Ratto's property, who, however, appointed Daya Ram to take charge of it. The appellant resented this very much. Three days before the murder of Daya Ram there had been a quarrel between the appellant and his wife on the one side and Ratto and Bhuri on the other. The quarrel arose over an attempt by the appellant to construct a wall over Ratto's land. The appellant uttered a threat that he would soon settle with the person on whom Ratto was depending, that is to say, the deceased Daya Ram. According to the High Court. the defence did not seriously challenge these allegations and the appellant himself admitted that Ratto wanted him to be turned out of his house.