Appeal against acquittal two views of the evidence reasonably possible- High Court, whether justified in interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

Criminal Trial-Material witnesses, non-examination of Duty of the prosecution-Prosecution not to rely on insufficient data for non-examining of material witnesses.

Criminal Trial-Evidence of of prosecution witnesses whose statements are recorded under sec. 164 Cr.P.C. Appreciation of their evidence Court to approach their evidence with caution,

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 Concurrent findings of fact- Supreme Court, when can reappraise evidence.

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374 Reference for confirmation of the death sentence-Duty of the High Court-High Court to examine for itself the entire evidence independently of Sessions Court.

Two persons, Tribeni Sahai and Radhey were shot dead in the town of Dataganj, District Budaun. The four appellants were tried along with two others by the learned Sessions Judge, Budaun, for various offences in connection with the incident. Balak Ram was convicted under sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to death. He was also convicted and sentenced under sec. 337 read with sec. 149 for causing injuries to Jhilmili and Ram Prakash and under sec. 148 IPC. The other five were acquitted of all the charges. Sentence of death imposed on Balak Ram was confirmed by the High Court. But in the appeal filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, the High Court confirmed the acquittal of Kailash, but convicted Nathoo, Dr. R. P. Kohli and Mohd. Sayeed Khan and Panney Khan under sections 302 and 307 read with sec. 149. It further convicted Nathoo and Dr. Kohli under section 148 and Banney Khan under section 147 of the Penal Code. The three accused have been sentenced by the High Court to imprison- ment for life for their participation in the murder of Tribeni Sahai and Radhey and concurrently to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for causing injuries to Jhilmili and Ram Prakash. Balak Ram, Nathco, Dr. Kohli and Bannty Khan have filed four separate appeals by special leave of this Court,

The prosecution case was that at about 9-15 p.m. on May the 27 the six accused along with 15 or 20 of their followers went about canvassing for the candidates put up by the Congress (O). A little later, they went southwards through a lane which leads to the house of the deceased Tribeni Sahai. He was having an after-dinner stroll with Radhey and as he reached the inter-section of acement road passing by his house and the line by which the processionists were proceeding, the appellants who were leading the processions started raising offensive slogans against him. Tribeni Sahai protested and a wrangle ensued. While hot words were being exchanged, Dr. Kohli, Banney Khan and Pearey Mian exhorted Balak Ram to fire. Balak Ram stepped out, stood on the raised ground to the east of the lane and fired a shot at Tribeni Sahai with a licensed pistol which he was carrying. Tribeni Sahai had sensed danger and was trying to escape but he was hit by a bullet on the right scapular region. Radhey who was a few paces behind Tribeni Sahai ran forward to protect him when Balak Ram, Nathoo and Dr. Kohli fired four or five shots. Radhey received a pistol injury on the left back. Jhilmili and Ram Prakash who live nearby came running in protest ( but they also received. injuries as a. result of the shots fired by Balak Ram, Nathoo and Dr. Kohli. Nathoo, like Balak Ram, was carrying a pistol while Dr. Kohli was armed with a licensed revolver. Jhilmili received an injury on his left thigh while Ram Prakash was found to have a superficial burn on the right side of his abdomen.

According to the prosecution, Rajendra Kumar Misra gave information of the incident at 4-45 p.m. at the Police Station which is about two furlongs away. The Station House Officer, Yogendra Sharma, asked a head constable to record the First Information Report. The S.H.0. signed the report and hurried to the scene of occurrence. The S.H.0. claims to have taken down the dying declaration of Tribeni Sahai in the case diary which he had taken with him while leaving the police station. This is the second of the three dying declarations. The first one is said to have been made to Dharam Pal, the rival candidate of the appellant Balak Ram. The third one was in the Budaun Hospital before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. These four appeals have been filed by special leave of this Court. 

It was contended (i) the. High Court had no sufficient reasons for interfering with the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in favour of Nathoo, Dr. Kohli and Banney Khan and (ii) the High Court was not justified in upholding the conviction of Balak Ram and the sentence of death imposed on him by the Sessions Court.

Dismissing the appeal of Balak Ram and allowing the other three appeals,