- (1.) Five persons, namely, Mohan Yadav, Tapsi Yadav, Chhotkun Yadav, Muneshwar Yadav and Kantoo Yadav were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Azamgarh for rioting, murder and other allied offences. The trial ended in convection of all of them under S. 302/149 Indian Penal Code, 307/149 Indian Penal Code and 323/149 Indian Penal Code. In addition, Mohan was convicted under Section 148 Indian Penal Code and the other four under section 147 Indian Penal Code. For the convictions so recorded, they were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment, including life, with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently. As the appeal preferred by them in High court was dismissed, they filed the instant appeal after obtaining special leave. During the pendency of the appeal, two of them, namely Tapsi and Chhotkun died and hence, the appeal so far as they are concerned abate.
(2.) The prosecution case briefly state is as under: (A) The chak belonging to Kumar (P. W. 3, father of Bandhoo (the deceased) and Chhotai (P. W. 4, is just in front of the house of Tapsi. For sometime past Tapsi was trying to acquire that chak and he had even asked Kumar to sell it to him. Kumar, however, did not agree to such proposal. Over the issue there was a long standing dispute between them. Besides, there were other disputes between Kumar 115 and his sons on the one hand and accused persons on the other. (B) In the morning of 13/10/1977, when the deceased went to plough the chak with bullocks, Tapsi and the other accused resisted him and tried to beat him up. Leaving his bullock and plough in the chak, Bandhoo then ran towards his house. The five accused persons then chased Bandhoo armed with various weapons. While Mohan had a country made pistol with him, Tapsi and chhotkun had ballams (spears) , Kantoo a burcha and Muneshwar a lathi. When Bandhoo reached the sehan (courtyard) of his house, Mohan fired at him with his country made pistol. The shot, however, did not hit Bandhoo. Thereafter, Tapsi and Chhotkun beat Bandhoo with their respective weapons. When Kumar and Chhotai rushed there to save Bandhoo, Muneshwar hit Kumar with the lathi and Kantoo hit Chhotai, with his burcha. Thereafter, all the five accused persons ran away. Bandhoo was then taken to the district hospital where he succumbed to his injuries in the same evening. (C) A written report of the incident was given to the police station by Kumar on the same day at 9.30 A. M. and on the information a case was registered against the five accused persons. Both Kumar and Chhotai were medically examined at the District Hospital, Azamgarh for the injuries they had sustained. (D) Sub Inspector Bhagirath Singh (pw-7 took up investigation of the case and went to the spot. He prepared a site plan and seized some blood stained earth from there. On completion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the above-mentioned five accused persons.
(3.) The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and their defence was that Kumar met with his death in a dacoity that was committed in his house by some unknown persons. In support of its case. the prosecution examined ten witnesses, of whom Kumar and Chhotai figured as eye Witnesses. No witness was however examined on behalf of the defence. The Trial court found the evidence of the above two witnesses reliable and as, according to it, their evidence stood corroborated by the evidence of Jhingur (PW-6, who claimed to have seen the accused persons running away immediately after the incident, the medical evidence and the FIR that was lodged with utmost dispatch, it convicted the five accused persons in the manner as stated earlier. The High court concurred with each of the findings of the Trial court in dismissing the appeal preferred by the five convicts.;