RAGABIR SINGH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks a certifirate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. By means of the impugned order, a Division Bench of this Court had, while upholding the conviction of Raghbir Singh under Section 302 1. P. C., reduced his sentence from one of death to that of life imprisonment and while allowing the State appeal against acquittal of Mohan Lal and Raj Singh, convicted them also under section 302 1. P. C., sentencing them to life imprisonment. Section 34, I.F.C. was held applicablie to the case. All the three appellants were in addition sentenced under section 307 read with section 34, 1. P. C. to seven years rigorous imprisonment and under section 3^5 read with section 34 1. P. C. to three years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) Shri Hardev Singh the learned counsel for the accused, has in the first instance submitted that the site plan has been illegally considered as evidence in this case and this illegality has resulted in grave injustice to his clients. In our opinion, the submission is misconceived. This Court's conclusions in the impugned order clearly proceed on the basis of oral evidence which has been accepted as trustworthy, keeping in view the caution contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in Masaltiv The State of Uttar Pradesh. Goverdhan P V.. I and Ram Sarup P. W. 3 were believed by the Court and their evidence was considered to be direct regarding the occurrence. It was Shri J. G. Sethi, Advocate who had tried to criticise the testimony of these witnesses by making reference to the site plan. While commenting on Shri Sethi's argument, this Bench dealt with the site plan, otherwise the occular testimony of the eye-witnesses is the real basis of this Court's cor elusions. On this view. the decision in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, is of no avail to the petitioners

(3.) The question of the applicability of section 34, J P. C., also does not raise any important question in this case which would justify the grant of the requisite certificate These were the only two points on the basis of which Jeave certificate has been claimed before us.