S.I.Jafri - (1.) APPELLANTS Sone Lal, Jagdish, Bhajan Lal, Nanhaunu and Tai Ram Singh have filed this appeal impugning therein the conviction u/Secs. 148, 307/149 IPC and sentences of 3 years' R.I. to each of them u/Sec. 148 IPC, 10 years' R.I. to each of them u/Sec. 307/149 IPC and 7 years' R.l. u/Sec. 307/149 IPC.
(2.) THE facts of the case as transpires from the FIR as well as from the evidence adduced in the case, are to the effect that PW 3 Ram Kumar who is a resident of village Sirdharpur P. S. Baqar Mau District Unnao along with his servant Muneshwar, had gone to Mohalla Chamraudha for hiring labourers. Finding PW 3 Ram Kumar, accused person namely, Sons Lal armed with his licensed gun, Jagdish armed with country made pistol, Nanhaunu armed with country made pistol, Bhajan Lal armed with gun and Jai Ram Singh also armed with gun, made an attempt to encircle Ram Kumar. Ram Kumar made an unsuccessful bid to escape at which he was challenged. Accused persons opened fire at Ram Kumar and his servant. Both Ram Kumar and Muneshwar screamed up for help at which Ram Din and Ram Naresh living adjacent to the place of occurrence came to the rescue of the aforesaid two persons and challenged the accused persons. Meanwhile, Ram Kumar and his servant escaped into the house of the aforesaid Ram Din. In the firing made by the accused persons, both Ram Kumar and his servant Muneshwar sustained fire-arm injuries. On being challenged by the villagers who had been attracted by the time to the scene of occurrence, the accused persons bolted away from the scene of occurrence. After the occurrence, sons of Ram Kumar, namely Naresh and Dinesh came at the scene who escorted their father and servant out of the house of the aforesaid Ram Din. THE report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station the same day. After the report having been registered at the Police Station, the injured were sent for medical examination and treatment. The accused persons have set out their own version of the occurrence to the effect that Ram Kumar and Muneshwar were attacked by some unknown. persons in the dark and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case taking advantage of the animosity between them and the complainant side. The defence also examined DW 1 Bhagwan Singh who is Pradhan of village Sir- dharpur whose house situates after 3-4 houses ot the house of Dinesh, son of the injured Ram Kumar. DW 1 Bhagwan Singh has shored up the defence case by stating that in the evening he visited the house of Dinesh where he came to know of the incident in which he was told by Dinesh that some unknown persons had attacked his father and servant. Before dwelling upon the merits and demerits of the case, it would be useful to delineate certain facts bearing heavily on the decision of the case. Both sides have admitted animosty between the parties preceding the date of the occurrence in the instant case. According to the prosecution case, one Shyam Behari, a friend of PW 3 Ram Kumar had been murdered and in the said murder case, accused Jai Ram and his brother Harish Chand were arrayed as accused persons. Ram Kumar was prosecuting the aforesaid case against the accused persons. Accused persons sent feelers to Ram Kumar to stay away but the aforesaid Ram Kumar declined saying that he was performing his duties and the accused persons should mind their own business. Accused persons felt offended at this court reply of Ram Kumar and began to harbour grudge against Ram Kumar. In between the period Jai Ram Singh accused also lodged a false report u/Sec. 307 IPC against Ram Kumar and one other which further helped exacerbate the relations between the parties. Ultimately, the strained relations between the parties culminated into the occurrence on 24-10-81.
(3.) IN the instant case, Ram Kumar (PW 3) and Muneshwar (PW 4) are two injured witnesses who have dwelt upon narration of the prosecution case in detail and in a consistent manner. PW 1 is Dr. Shyam Mohan Krishna, Medical Officer (Emergency) at Lala Lajpat Rai Hospital Kanpur who had examined the injuries on the persons of Ram Kumar and Muneshwar on 25-10-81 at 3 P.M. and 3.30 P.M respectively. PW 5 Ram Din is the person who came to the rescue of the victims as a result of their screams and in whose house the victims had taken shelter as a cover to firing. His testimony is also consistent with the case set up by the prosecution. PW 6 is the investigating officer of the instant case. I have re-appraised with case and precision the evidence adduced in the instant case by the prosecution as well as by the defence. I have also taken into account the facts and circumstances vis-a-vis the evidence adduced in the instant case. I have also dwelt upon the probabilities consistent with the innocence of the accused persons in the light of the facts and circumstances on the record and the evidence adduced in the instant case. I have also gone through the findings arrived at by the court below. Upon a careful scanning of the findings arrived at by the trial court, I feel that the learned trial court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons in arriving at a conclusion consistant with the guilt of the accused persons. In the course of gruelling cross- examination which the witnesses were subjected to, the defence has not been able to elicit any infirmity that may point to the discreditability of any of the witnesses. Excepting kicking up certain trivialities and raising certain improbabilities shown to be consistent with the guilt of the applicants, the defence has not been able to shake any of the witnesses generating a reasonable doubt about the truthfulness of their evidence. I would also like to quip that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant's are the replica of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants before the trial court and in view of the fact that they have fully been taken into account and dealt with, I do not find any new ground warranting any inereference by this court.;