- (1.) THESE two appeals were preferred by Suresh, Munna, Mauji Lal, Kanka, Sohan, Mohan, Ramesh and Ghasite against their conviction and sentences under Section 302/149 IPC to life imprisonment, under Sections 325/149 IPC to one year's RI, under Section 324/149 IPC to one year's RI under Section 323/149 to six months RI and Suresh, Munna and Ramesh also under Section 148 IPC to six months' RI, Ghasitey, Sohan, Mohan, Mauji Lal and Nanka were also convicted the sentenced to RI for six months under Section 147 IPC. All these sentences were to run concurrently. Accused Mahendra was also convicted under the above said counts but was not sentenced to imprisonment and was released on probation of good conduct as he was a child.
(2.) THE occurrence in this case had taken place at 1. 00 p. m. on 27-6- 1979 in village Jarari, P. B. Shivrajpur. THE deceased Arjun Singh, his father and brother Ram Sewak Singh were taking their meal in their house, Lala Singh called Arjun Singh to the temple on the pretext of holding a Panchayat to settle their dispute and the litigation. He accompanied Lala Singh to the temple. Little afterwards an alarm raised by Arjun was heard. THE informant, Ram Sewak and his daughter-in-law came out and saw that accused Lala Singh armed with knife, Suresh Singh and Mahendra Singh armed with Tabal Ramesh and Munna with Pharsa, Shyam Lal with Ballam and Ghasite, Sohan, Mohan, Mauji, Nanka and maternal uncle of Ramesh (who in evidence was named as Raja Ram) armed with Lathis were assaulting Arjun. When the witnesses rushed to save him they were also beaten. Arjun Singh ran towards North. He was chased upto the door of Shambhu Kori. He was thrown down there and assault to death. Bharosa Singh, Ram Sewak Singh and Smt. Munni, the father, brother and wife of the deceased also suffered injuries in this incident. THE incident was witnessed by Mahipat Bari, Suraj Pal Singh Thakur and many people of the village. On challenge from the witnesses the assailants ran towards East. THE FIR of this occurrence was lodged on the same day at 4. 00 p. m. by Bharosa Singh, father of the deceased. The trial Court after conclusion of the trial acquitted Lala Singh, Shyam Lal and Raja Ram giving them benefit of doubt. Rest of the accused were convicted as discussed above. The prosecution in order to support its case has produced in all 10 witnesses. Out of them Smt. Munni Devi (PW-1), Ram Sewak Singh (PW-3) and Bharosa Singh (PW-6) are eye-witnesses. The Court also summoned and examined Mahipat Bari and Suraj Pal, who were nominated as eye-witnesses in the FIR, as CW-2 and CW-3. Remaining witnesses are formal. Dr. C. K. Singh conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. Constable Surya Bhan Singh PW-4 escorted the injured persons for medical examination. Kamta Singh PW-5 escorded the dead body to mortuary. Dr. S. K. Raghuvanshi, PW-7 medically examined Munni Devi, Bharosa Singh and Ram Sewak Singh in the evening from 7. 30 p. m. to 8. 15 p. m. Sukh Pal Singh, PW-8 is Head Moharrir. After registration of the case he prepared cheek FIR and GD entry etc. Ram Saran Singh PW-9 is first Investigating Officer. Lallan Ram, PW-10 is second Investigating Officer. He has submitted the charge-sheet, Dr. H. C. Prasad CW-1, is another Court witness, who had X-rayed the hands and skull of Munni Devi. He found fracture of left forearm bone. This is the entire evidence.
(3.) THE accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. Mohan stated that Mahendra used to induce his nephew to gambling. He had resisted and did not allow Ramesh to do so. Arjun Singh became angry and therefore, he has been involved. Nanka, Shyam Lal and Mauji Lal s/o Pokhar had submitted that they were taking water from the tubewell of Arjun Singh. He was charging in excess of the fixed rate. THEy did not pay the extra charges. A quarrel took place between them, as a result of which he was involved in the present case. No witness was, however, produced in defence. Now taking up first the statements of CW-2 Suraj Pal and CW-3 Mahipat we find that these two witnesses are of no help either to the prosecution or to the defence. Both of them denied their presence at the scene of occurrence. CW-2 stated that he was not present in Indalpur at the time of this incident. CW-1 claimed that he was not in Indalpur at that time. He did not know anything about the incident. He further stated in next breath that he was lying ill in his house. Both, therefore, denied to have witnessed the occurrence or otherwise they are unwilling to support the prosecution version as set-forth. These two are independent locality witnesses.;