STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RAM BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1064/1996.

(2.) Criminal Appeal No. 1787/1996 has been preferred by the State of U.P. against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad at Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1979. Against the very same judgment one private party has also filed a Criminal Appeal by way of Special Leave. In both these appeals the acquittal of four accused persons is challenged. Accused were tried by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki alleging that they caused the death of Onkar Nath Singh. The incident occurred on 6-12-1974 at 4.30 p.m. There was property dispute between Onkar Nath Singh on the one hand and the accused persons. On the date of the incident, PW-4 Jagdish Baksh Singh was ploughing his field with a tractor. The accused persons raised objections to the ploughing of the field by Jagdish Baksh Singh. It seems that there was wordy altercation. Accused Bhanu Pratap Singh, who was armed with a gun, fired a shot and hit on the chest of Onkar Nath Singh. Onkar Nath Singh tried to run away from the place, then he was shot again. Onkar Nath Singh fell on the ground after running few paces. PW-1 Bikram Shah Singh and PW-4 Jagdish Baksh Singh snatched the gun from Shanu Pratap Singh. Onkar Nath Singh died on the spot. First information statement was given by PW-2 at about 7.15 p.m. on the same day and PW-8 recorded the same and started investigation of the case.

(3.) PW-3 Dr. V. N. Agarwal examined the dead body of Onkar Nath Singh and prepared Ext. Ka-3 post-mortem report. There were two injuries on the body of deceased Onkar Nath Singh. One gun shot wound of entry 6 cm. x 4 cm. tissue deep on front of left side chest upper part and other exit injury of 1 cm. x 1 cm. tissue deep on right side back lower part with direction forward and upward. Doctor opined death was due to shock and haemorrhage. The Sessions Judge found all the four accused persons guilty of murder. Bhanu Pratap Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 302 simpliciter and the other three accused persons were convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34.