Khem Karan, G.K.Gupta, JJ. - (1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.3.1982, by which the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli convicted and sentenced the four appellants to life imprisonment under section 302 read with section 34 of I.P.C., for committing murder of Sidhnath Singh and to one month R.I. under section 323 read with section 34 of I.P.C. for voluntarily causing simple hurt to Aharva Din on 28.2.1981 at about 4.00 p.m. The prosecution came with a case that on 28.2.1981 at about 4.00 p.m. while the deceased Sidhnath Singh accompanied by Aharva Din P.W.2 was on way back to his village after attending a date in a case under section 107/116 of Cr.P.C. that all these four appellants assaulted him and Aharva Din at about 4.00 p.m., as a result of which, both of them sustained injuries and later on Sidhnath Singh died while on way to the district hospital..It was said that the incident of assault was witnessed amongst other by Matapher Singh, Radhey Shyam and Ram Karan Yaday. It was alleged that Sidhnath Singh himself dictated the First Information Report to Matapher Singh P.W.1 and lodged the same with Police Station Maharajganj on the same day at 6.40 p.m. It was claimed that I.O. Sri Mohd. Akhtar recorded the statement of Sidhnath Singh under section 161 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter despatched him and the other injured Aharva D'n to a nearby Primary Health Centre for medical examination. The injuries of both these persons were allegedly examined at Primary Health Centre Maharajganj in the same evening at about 7.00 or 8.00. Dr. O.P. Srivastava P.W.5 found as many as six injuries on the person of Sidhnath Singh, out of which one was reported to be a punctured wound. As the condition of Sidhnath Singh was a little serious, so advice was given for shifting ilim to the district hospital for better treatment. On the person of Aharva Din, Dr. Srivastava found as many as three injuries, which could have been caused by a blunt object. On post-mortem examination of the dead body of Sidhnath Singh on 1.3.1981 at 3.35 p.m. Dr. Ashok Kumar Shukla P.W.6 found as many as eight ante-mortem external injuries. Besides the above, Dr. Shukla also found two of the ribs fractured and kidney ruptured. According to Sri Shukla, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the above injuries. After usual investigation, the accused in the FIR were put on trial.
(2.) The appellants denied the charges and contended that they had falsely been implicated clue to enmity. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, out of which Matapher Singh P.W. 1 and Aharva Din P.W.2 were alleged eyewitnesses. It appears that the prosecution also relied on FIR Ext. Ka-1 and statement of Sidhnath Singh under section 161 Ext. Ka-18, as dying declaration under section 32 (1) of Indian Evidence Act. The defence adduced no evidence.
(3.) The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt. He placed full reliance on the ocular version given by Matapher and Aharva Din and also on the dying declaration of the deceased in the shape of FIR Ext. Ka-1. He however, excluded from consideration the statement of Sidhnath Singh recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. According to him, the act of the appellants in causing fatal injuries to Sidhnath Singh was punishable under section 302 of I.P.C.;