SCC(Cri)290 , ,MANU/SC/0108/1970A.N. Ray#I.D. Dua#214SC1270Judgment/OrderMANU#SCC#SCC(Criminal)I.D. Dua,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Previous judgments relevant to bar a second suit or trial,Law of Evidence16125,15817,16917,17052,17060,15596,15621,15622,15623,15624 -->

MANU/SC/0108/1970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On: 19.02.1970

Appellants: Chandra Bhal Vs. Respondent: The State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.N. Ray and I.D. Dua

JUDGMENT

I.D. Dua, J.

1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant Chandra Bhal challenges his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. for the murder of one Lauwa on the night between 19th and 20th March, 1964. He was tried in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur along with his brother Manuwa and his nephew Suresh. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life but his two co-accused who were charged under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. were acquitted by the trial Court. On appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence. In this Court the only question canvassed before us by Shri Chari learned advocate for the appellant is that the transaction in which Lauwa was shot by the appellant included certain other incidents in which some other persons were also shot dead and wounded. The trials in respect of those other incidents were held separately and this, according to the learned advocate, has prejudiced the appellant in his trial for the alleged murder of Lauwa. The counsel in this connection emphasised that the appellant's acquittal in those cases on the plea of self-defence would also serve as conclusive proof of his plea of self defence in the present trial, It may, however, be said in fairness to the appellant's counsel that he did not invoke the principle of autrefois acquit underlying Section 403, Cr.P.C. which is now also embodied in Article 20(2) of the Constitution. No serious attempt was made before us to take us through the evidence in this case in order to sustain the plea of private defence on the existing record, and rightly so, because on appeal under Article 130 of the Constitution it is not practice of this Court to repress or re-evaluate evidence for considering the correctness of the conclusions of the High Court on questions of facts.

2. The first information report in this case was lodged by Viswa Nath, P.W.4, who seems to be the person with whom the trouble originated. According to this report Chandra Bhal, Manuwa and Suresh went to his house at 11.00 on the night between the 19th and 20th March 1964, Chandra Bhal armed with a gun and the other two with lathis. Addressing Vishwa Nath in an abusive language, Suresh chased him with a lathi injuring his left hand finger. On alarm having been raised by Vishwa Nath, the people of the village started coming to the spot. Seeing them, Chandra Bhal started firing at them. Vishwa Nath' son Har Narain alia Gange who also arrived at the scene was first gives a lathi blow by Manuwa and was later fired at by Chandra Bhal. Har Narain ran away but fell down at a little distance Chandra Bhal continued to move around firing his gun at random Gun allots also hit Raj Narain, son of Vishwa Nath. Har Narain, Ganga Ram, Debi Dayal, Jagannath, Bhagirath, Sheo Prakash, Mouji Lal and Lauwa. Lauwa ran and fell down in the chamaraonki-gali and died at the spot. The report proceeded to state that Chandra Bhal was moving in the village with hi........