STATE Vs. KANWAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal Miscellaneous Application 1091 -M of 1968 has arisen out of Criminal Appeal 288 of 1966 decided by a Bench of this Court on 11th July, 1968. Ram Singh and Dhuman, sons of Sondhu of village Barauna, Tahsil and District Rohtak, were convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Kali Ram in the jurisdiction of village Silana, Police Station, Sampla and each of them sentenced to imprisonment for life Criminal Appeal 288 of 1966 filed by them in this Court was dismissed.

(2.) THE deceased and the convicts belonged to village Barauna. It was alleged that the deceased had gone to the Rest House in Silana in connection with the hearing of security proceedings against him before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Rohtak, who was on the day of the occurrence holding his Court there. Kali Ram was said to have been murdered by the convicts on his way back after attending the Court. Kanwal Singh Respondent, was one of the eye witnesses who is a rope maker and lives in the vicinity of Police Station Kharkhoda, and according to the prosecution, was returning that day from village Silana where he had gone to purchase jute for preparing ropes, but could not do so as it was not available. He made two statements before the committing Magistrate, one on 18th September, 1965, and the other on 31st January, 1966. In both these statements, he implicated the accused. At the trial which took place on 10th March, 1966, he went back on his previous statements and completely denied that he ever witnessed the occurrence. It was stated by him that he had made the previous statements before the committing Magistrate under police pressure. The Sessions Judge transferred his statements before the committing Magistrate to his own file under Section 288, Code of Criminal Procedure, and found them to be true as they supported the other eye -witnesses. The Bench hearing the appeal affirmed the findings of the Sessions Judge and upheld the convictions and sentences. The learned Judges while dismissing the appeal made some observations about Kanwal Singh, Respondent, which it is necessary to reproduce in extenso:

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons, the Rule issued by this Court against the Respondent on 11th July, 1968, is discharged.