VINOD PRASAD J. - (1.) FOUR appellants, including two sibling brothers Deo Singh (A- 1), and Megh Singh (A-2) and two others, Chheda Lal (A-3) and Chob Singh (A-4) were convicted under section 302/34 I.P.C. by VIIIth Additional Session's Judge, Etah, in S.T. No. 281 of 1982, State Vs. Deo Singh and others, relating to P.S. Sahawar, District Etah, vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.8.83 and hence convicted accused have preferred instant appeal challenging their aforesaid conviction and sentences.
(2.) PROSECUTION allegations, as narrated by the informant Lala Ram (P.W. 1) in his written FIR Ext. Ka-1, and later on deposed in the Session's Trial, were that prosecution side as well as accused appellants, both were residents of the village Nagla Ishwari, P.S. Sahawar, District Etah. To make the prosecution allegation clear, a pedigree, as was testified by Lala Ram P.W. 1, is sketched herein under. One 'X' had two sons Buddha and Chet Ram. Buddha had five sons, namely, Prem Singh (father of informant Lala Ram, P.W.1), Deen Dayal, Panna Lal (father of eye witness Mohan Lal), Pokh Pal and Ganga Ram (father of eye witness Ram Singh). Chet Ram had two sons Bhojraj and Veer Sahai (prosecution witness). Bhagwan SINGH IS THE SON OF BHOJRAJ. Two days prior to the present incident, marriage procession of Bhagwan Singh had gone to the village Veerpur at a distance of 6-7 kos (12-14 miles) from appellant's village. In that marriage procession, informant Mohan Lal, Ram Autar (deceased), Veer Sahai, Ram Singh and Prem Singh had gone. Following day of the marriage procession, Panna Lal (father of witness Mohan Lal) expired, which message was conveyed to the informant and others in Veerpur at 5 P.M. divulged by Lekh Pal son of Girvar and, therefore, informant, Mohan Lal, Ram Singh, Om Prakash and Ramveer returned back to their village at 9 P.M., same day, whereas rest of the persons gone with the marriage procession stayed over at Veerpur. Last rites of Panna Lal was performed next day morning at 7 A.M. According to the further prosecution allegations, Ram Autar (deceased), who had also gone in the marriage was a servant at the thrasher of one Ram Swaroop, which was adjacent to informant's house. Ram Autar had already returned back to his native village from marriage procession at 12 in the noon, as Ram Swaroop seldom gave him permission to go out of village. Ram Autar lived at Ram Swaroop's house and used to dine there itself. After his return informant went to inform the deceased regarding demise of Panna Lal, elder brother of his father(Tau) and to request him to shut down the thrasher. Deceased, however did not shut down the thrasher and continued thrashing the crops of appellant Megh Singh. Deceased asked the informant to stay over with him at the thrasher. When informant was present with the deceased at the thrasher that, in his presence, two of the accused Megh Singh and Deo Singh, took away the deceased from the thrasher. Informant thereafter returned back near the dead body of Panna Lal at 11.30 p.m. Thereafter, informant spotted the deceased and two accused Megh Singh and Deo Singh, sitting at the roof of the house of Megh Singh. Subsequent thereto accused Chheda Lal and Chob Singh, took away all the three of them to the house of Chheda Lal. Sometimes thereafter, all the four appellants raised hue and cry that a burglar had trespassed into the house of Chheda Lal. Said aired hue and cry attracted informant Lala Ram, Deen Dayal, Veer Sahai, Ram Singh and Mohan Lal towards the house of Chheda Lal and they all inquired about the burglar, but were told that burglar shall be produced next day morning. At that time the room, in which burglar was detained, was bolted and locked from outside. In spite of insistence by the witnesses to see the burglar, they were refused.
(3.) FOLLOWING day morning, wife of accused Chheda Lal informed the informant that his brother, Ram Autar, had been murdered and was bolted in the room. A similar news was also flashed in the village. Informant Lala Ram, thereafter, got FIR Ext. Ka-1, scribed through Mahesh and went to the Police Station Sahawar, at a distance of seven miles and lodged his FIR as crime no. 56/82, under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellants on the following morning 6.5.82 at 10.05 A.M. Constable clerk Khan Singh (P.W. 7) had recorded Ext. Ka-1 by preparing chik FIR Ext. Ka-12 and relevant GD entry Ext. Ka-13. S.O. Sahawar Brij Raj Singh (P.W. 6) commenced investigation into the crime and interrogated the informant (P.W. 1) at the police station itself and, thereafter, arriving at the murder scene in village Ishwari Nagala, he got the latch of bolted locked room broke open. Corpse of Ram Autar was found hanging from a tie rod by a tahmad (wrapper), which was wrapped around the neck. The corpse of the deceased was got untied and alighted and put on the floor supinely. Recovery memo of the lock was prepared by the I.O. as Ext. Ka-2. Thereafter, I.O. conducted inquest on the cadaver of the deceased and prepared inquest report Ext. Ka-4. Other relevant papers Ext. Ka-5 to Ka-7 were also prepared simultaneously by the I.O., P.W. 6. Concluding inquest, the dead body was sealed and was handed over to constables Devi Prasad and Palan Singh to be carried to the mortuary for postmortem examination. I.O. thereafter, conducted spot inspection and prepared site plan map Ext. Ka-11. Thereafter, witnesses were interrogated and concluding investigation, PW 6 laid charge sheet Ext. Ka-11 against accused appellants on 26.7.82.;