NAHEED ARA MOONIS,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA and have taken through the record.
(2.) THE instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2010 passed by Yogesh Kumar (H.J.S.) District and Sessions Judge Siddharth Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2008 (State Versus Sant Ram and others) vide Case Crime No. 576 of 2007 under section 302 /34 IPC Police Station Khesraha District Siddharth Nagar whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment under section 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 1000/- against each and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellants had to undergo further imprisonment of two months. The genesis of the prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 23.9.2007 , Muniraj (complainant) was going to graze his buffalo . Sant Ram (appellant no.1) was coming back on his cycle from the eastern side . The appellant no.1 dashed the cycle with Muniraj as a result of which some verbal duel ensued . Subsequent thereto, accused Sant Ram, Vishnujeet and his son Rajoo equipped with spear (Farsa) raided the house of Muniraj . Sharmdei, the wife of Muniraj who was collecting the reaped paddy plants, was lynched to death . This incident was witnessed by Muniraj, Sudhiram ,Sushila and Sunita. The first information report with regard to the said incident was lodged on 23.7.2007 at about 5.00 p.m. The corpse was sent to the mortuary and the autopsy of the victim was conducted on the next day i.e .24.9.2007. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined the complainant Sudhi Ram (P.W.2), Muniraj (PW.3) and Sushila P.W.4 who are the witnesses and had seen the incident. Blood stained spear (Farsa) was recovered at the pointing of the accused Sant Ram which was marked as Ex.Ka.9
(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are absolutely innocent . They are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case. There is no plausible explanation about the delay in lodging the first information report . There is great inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses. From the post mortem of the victim, one incised wound on the left side of the neck, one abraded contusion on the laternal aspect of the left shoulder, one lacerated wound on the right index finger were found and according to the the doctor who had prepared the post mortem report, has opined that death has occurred due to hemorrhage on account of shock and ante-mortem injuries. It is contended by P.W.2 Sudhi Ram that his father Muniraj (P.W.3) had reached at his house , at that very juncture, the appellants armed with Spear (Farsa) chased complainant and his father to assault them . They encircled his house but on account of resistance, they could not succeed in entering the house. Just thereafter, they went at the paddy field of the complainant which was situated just contiguous to his house . The mother of the complainant was collecting the reaped paddy crops. They assaulted her with Spear (Farsa) . It is not mentioned in the first information report that they were inside the house but in the statement it has been stated that they remained in the house when attacked by the appellants then it would not have been possible for them to see that appellants were assaulting Smt. Sharmdei . The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case as there is only one incised wound on her neck whereas all the appellants are alleged to be armed with spear (Farsa) which creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version.;