Decided on October 05,2016

STATE OF U.P. Respondents


- (1.) These criminal appeals, which are to be disposed of by a common order, are directed against the judgment of the High Court where under the High Court upheld the sentence and conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
(2.) The prosecution story, briefly stated is that, the incident occurred on 28.10.2001 in which one Arvind (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was killed by the accused persons. It is alleged that some days prior to the incident a quarrel was said to have taken place between the deceased and the accused persons. As a consequence thereof accused Bali lodged a report under Section 307 of the IPC. This had caused a heart burning enmity which is said to be the motive of the incident occurred on 28.10.2001. The murder of the deceased is said to have been committed at about 9.30 a.m. when he was going to Nagra Haat along with his uncle Devi Sahu (PW-1) and brother Rajesh Sahu (PW-2). It is alleged that when the deceased along with his uncle and brother reached the temple of Shankar Ji, they were confronted by the accused persons, in which the appellant Dharmendra is said to have caught hold of the deceased and accused Balli fired on his forehead about 5 cm above the left eyebrow by a country-made pistol causing the deceased fall down on the ground and then accused Raju who took a stone of about 8 x 8 inch and struck on the back of his head. Devi Das Sahu, the uncle of the deceased as well as Rajendra Sahu brother of the deceased ran away from the scene of the occurrence towards a lane going to Nagra Haat to save their lives. Several persons assembled at the place of occurrence but the assailants fled away extending threat to kill if any body attempts to chase them. Devi Das Sahu went to police station and got prepared the written report made by his son on the basis of which first information report was lodged.
(3.) After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution altogether examined six witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6). The statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants were recorded in which they pleaded their false implication.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.