- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. Criminal Appeal No. 2019 of 1980 has been preferred by Babbu Lal and Sadhu while criminal appeal No. 2119 of 1980 has been preferred by Radhika. Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 9-9-1980 of VIIth Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad in S. T. No. 191 of 1979 by which Radhika was convicted under Section 302, IPC and Babbu Lal and Sadhu were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and they were all sentenced to imprisonment for life. Babbu Lal was further convicted under Section 307, IPC while remaining two accused were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to seven years RI. Radhika was also convicted under Section 394 IPC while Babbu Lal and Sadhu were convicted under Section 394 read with Section 34 IPC and they were all sentenced to five years R. I. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the first informant PW-4 Devi Prasad is son of the deceased Kali Din who was residing in Village Deori. THE appellant Radhika had lodged eight cattle of the deceased in the cattle pound in the rainy season prior to the occurrence. Sometime thereafter the complainant Devi Prasad also lodged the cattle of Radhika in the cattle pound. After he got his cattle released, Radhika came to the house of the deceased Kali Din and threatened him that he will have to face the consequences of his doings. THE case of the prosecution further is that at about 6 p. m. on 22-2- 1978, the deceased Kali Din was warming himself before the fire which was burning in a small earthen oven in the outer varanda of his house while the complainant Devi Prasad, his brother Sharda Prasad, his mother and a neighbour PW-4 Raj Bali were also sitting there and were warming themselves before the fire. Kali Din was sitting on a cot. Meanwhile Radhika and his son Babbu Lal accused armed with pistols, Sadhu armed with Danda and an unknown persons armed with Lathi came there. Radhika said that no one should be able to escape and thereafter fired from his pistol upon Kali Din which hit him on the back side of waist. Raj Bali protested and said why he was committing such crime. Sadhu accused then exhorted that he should be killed. Babbu Lal accused then fired from his pistol upon Raj Bali which hit him on his hand. Kali Din fell down after receiving the injury and became unconscious. On hearing the alarm many persons of the village came there. Radhika then entered the room behind the Varanda and after picking up the licensed gun of Kali Din which was lying on a cot ran away. THE witnesses tried to apprehend these persons but Babbu Lal again fired from his pistol due to which they were deterred and did not give a chase. Kali Din died shortly thereafter. Devi Prasad then got a report scribed from Omkar Singh and went along with Raj Bali to P. S. Manda where the FIR was lodged at 10 p. m. on 22-2- 1978. THE distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is 10 Km. Pw-7 Kanhaiya Lal Yadav was the clerk constable at P. S. Manda. On the basis of the FIR lodged by Devi Prasad, he registered a case in the general diary No. 25 at 10 p. m. He also prepared a chick FIR Pw-8 Kunwar Pal Singh, S. O. of P. S. Manda was present at the police station at the time of lodging of the FIR. He sent the injured Raj Bali for medical examination to PHC, Manda. Thereafter he proceeded for Village Deori where the incident had taken place. He held inquest on the body of the deceased Kali Din. He found blood on the quilt and the cot, on which Kali Din was sitting. He took blood stained pillow, quilt and some clothes of the deceased in his possession and prepared their recovery memo. He also found blood below the cot and also on the jute matting of the cot. He collected plain and blood stained earth from there and also the jute matting and prepared their recovery memo. He thereafter prepared necessary documents in connection with post-mortem examination of the deceased body. The body was sealed and was sent for post-mortem examination. After completing other formalities and recording the statement of witnesses, he submitted charge-sheet against the three accused persons. The identity of the fourth unknown accused could not be known. The learned CJM took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302, 307/34 and 394 IPC against Radhika. Charges under Sections 302/34, 307 and 394/34 IPC were framed against Babbu Lal and charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 394/34 IPC were framed against Sadhu accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case examined ten witnesses including two eye-witnesses. THE accused in their statement under Section 313 Crpc denied the case of prosecution and alleged their false implication on account of enmity. THEy did not lead any evidence in their defence. THE learned Sessions Judge believed the case of prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. We have heard Sri S. P. Singh for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and have perused the entire record.;