Case: Zile Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration)

2. A detailed narration of the prosecution is to be found in the judgment of the High Court and that of the Sessions Judge and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same. This appears to be a case of patricide in which the appellant is said to have murdered his father on the suspicion that his father had an illicit intimacy with his wife during his absence from Delhi. The occurrence took place in the morning of September 28, 1971 when the appellant entered the house of the deceased and gave an axe blow on his neck cutting the same. The first information report was lodged by Raj Pal, PW 28 at about 4.45 a.m. i.e. within two hours of the occurrence as the Police Station Najafgarh was at a distance of six miles from the place of occurrence. The central evidence against the appellant consists of the testimony of PW 20Charan Singh and more particularly his evidence before the committing magistrate which has been marked as Ex. Pcorroborated by the evidence of PW 22Prithi Singh and further corroborated by the recovery ofclothes from the accused when he was arrested by the police on September 28, 1971 at 2.30 p.m. The Serologists report shows that theon the clothes of the accused were of same group as that of the deceased. This is as very important circumstance to corroborate the prosecution case against the appellant. The High Court and the Sessions Judge have fully considered the evidence of these witnesses and the evidence furnished by the recovery of theclothes and have held that the prosecution case has been proved beyond personable doubt.

Reasoning:
Thus, there are cogent reasons and intrinsic circumstances to lend support to the inference that the statements given by these witness before the committing court were in fact true and correct and the Sessions Judge, therefore, was right in relying on those statements.4. Moreover as indicated above the statement of PWed by the evidence of PW 22and recovery ofclothes from the possession of the appellant. This Court will not reappraise that evidence in appeal by special leave. It was the argued that there was no reliable evidence to prove the motive for the murder. As there is direct and clear evidence which connects the accused with the murder of the deceased, the question of motive becomes academic. The High Court was given cogent reasons for accepting the evidence of recovery and corroborative evidence of PW 22. We are unable to find any error of law in the findings arrived at by the High Court.