Rameshwar and anr. Vs. State of U.P.

criminal - benefit of doubt - appeal against conviction in daylight murder on ground that accused were identified by relatives of deceased who should not be relied upon and benefit of doubt be given to accused - lower court convicted accused by giving reasons that close relative of deceased will not implicate wrong person and let the real culprits go - conviction by lower courts based on correct appreciation of evidence and hence upheld. - labour & services reservation: [tarun chatterjee & h.l.dattu,jj] appellant appointed as primary school teacher by claiming reservation under group b category of classification for backward class citizens however, on verification, her caste found to be transferred to group d category held, finding that she would not be entitled to retain post cannot be faulted. but in peculiar facts, striking down appointment after so many years would cause great hardship and injustice to appellant and at the same time no prejudice would cause to others if appellants service continued as primary teacher. supreme court in facts and circumstances in order to do complete justice, without going into merits of the order directed respondents not to dislodge appellant from post of primary school teacher. .....p.m. the two appellants and lasra arrived there. the first appellant had a rifle and the second appellant a barchhi and lasra a lathi. the second appellant and lasra were said to have exhorted the 1st appellant to kill p.w. 1 and the deceased. thereupon the 1st appellant fired his rifle at the deceased and fired a second shot at p.w. 1. this did not hit p.w. 1 but ramji died on the spot. the sessions judge convicted all the three accused. the high court acquitted lasra giving him the benefit of doubt.3. both the courts below accepted the evidence of p.w. 1, p.w. 2 p.w. 3, lakshmi, as regards the actual occurrence. they took the view that being a daylight murder there was no question of the witnesses not being able to identify the miscreants and the witnesses here being close relatives of the deceased would be most unwilling to leave the real culprits and implicate wrong persons, we see no reason to differ from the concurrent findings of the courts below as to the occurrence.4. so far as the sentence is concerned we agree with the high court that no indulgence can be shown to the two a pellants as the crime was committed in a most high handed and cruel manner on a mere small provocation, if at all provocation it were. it has been urged vehemently on behalf of the appellants by mr. dhingra, appearing as amicus curiae for the appellants, that the first appellant is an old man and he should not, therefore, be sentenced to death. we are not able to accept this argument. we see no circumstances which would warrant awarding of any sentence lesser than death on the first appellant. the appeal is therefore, dismissed.