MAHENDRA DAYAL, J. - (1.) THE appellants Satyanam Singh and Jagatpal Singh have been convicted by Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki in S.T. No.254 of 1993, decided on 11.01.1995, whereby both of them have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years under Section 304 IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/ - each. It is directed that in case of default in payment of fine, they will further undergo rigorous imprisonment of four months.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that deceased Rajesh Kumar, aged about eighteen years son of the informant was grazing his she -buffalo on the date of occurrence i.e. 21.06.1993 near the field where appellants Satyanam Singh and Jagatpal Singh were also present ploughing their field. In the meantime, she -buffalo of the deceased reached near the bullocks and the bullocks feeling disturbed started running here and there. It was on account of this running of the bullocks that they got injured. On this, Satyanam Singh became angry and started abusing the deceased Rajesh Kumar and threatened to see him. After two days of the aforesaid occurrence i.e. 23.06.1993 when the informant Hardeo Singh along with his son Rajesh Kumar and Rakesh Kumar and Malkhan Singh was present, the appellants came armed with 'lathi' and started assaulting Rajesh Kumar with 'lathis'. As a result of severe injuries, Rajes Kumar fell down and while on his way to police station, he expired. A written report was lodged by Hardeo Singh on 23.06.1993 itself at about 4.30 PM, on the basis of which, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellants and after Punchnama, the dead body of Rajesh Kumar was sent for postmortem. The Investigating Officer after completion of other formalities, submitted charge -sheet against the appellants. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined six witnesses including the informant Hardeo Singh and eye -witness Malkhan Singh. The learned trial court on appraisal of evidence found the appellants guilty of the offence of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced them as aforesaid.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State and have also gone through the record of Session trial. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the FIR of the case is highly doubtful and if the FIR on the basis of which the investigation started is doubtful, the entire prosecution case is shattered. The FIR has been challenged on the ground that in the written FIR, the informant at the end has written that when he was coming to Thana along with his injured son, his son died on way. This part of the FIR is indicative of the fact that the written application was prepared somewhere else and the informant reached the Thana with previously written FIR. However, when the informant was examined before the Court, he stated that when he reached the police station, he took a plain paper from Thana Munshi and went to the market, which is about two furlongs away from the Thana, where he met Harnam Singh. The written report was prepared by Harnam Singh on his dictation. Thereafter he gave the written FIR to Thana Munshi and thereupon a case was registered. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, this contradiction with regard to lodging of the FIR is material and creates a doubt as to the time when the FIR was lodged. It is clearly indicative of the fact that the FIR was lodged after a long gap by the informant and ante -time was mentioned while registering the case against the appellants. This discrepancy in the statement of the informant, creates a doubt with regard to FIR and as such the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful. The second submission on behalf of the appellants is that place of occurrence is not established. According to the FIR, the occurrence took place when the informant along with sons was present near Aata Chakki of Chander Baniya. The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer indicates that the occurrence took place on galiyara. On the contrary, the informant in his examination -in -chief has stated that on the date of occurrence, he was going to collect Sarpat in the field along with Malkhan Singh and son Rajesh Kumar. When he was on his way to the field to collect Sarpat, one Mihi Lal met him and asked to provide a 'Biri'. When he was giving 'Biri' to Mihi Lal, Rajesh Kumar went few steps ahead from there and as soon as he reached near Aata Chakki of Chander Baniya, the appellants came armed with 'lathis'. They then started assaulting the deceased with 'lathi'. Thus, the place of occurrence as disclosed in the FIR and as stated by the informant, is different. That apart, three persons allegedly assaulted the deceased with 'lathi' while postmortem of the deceased indicates that only two injuries were found on the body of the deceased. This manner of assault also suggests that in fact there was no intention to kill the deceased. The appellants only wanted to teach a lesson to the deceased but any how the deceased received an head injury and died. No specific role is assigned to any one and it is not established from the evidence on record as to who was responsible for the fatal injury of the deceased.;