Pratyush Kumar, J. - (1.) THE present appeal, filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by the accused appellant, is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.09.1984 passed by Sri G.L. Tandon, Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in S.T. No. 209 of 1983 [State v. Vijay Pratap Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh @ Babu Singh] whereby the present appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated on 02.10.1982 at 9.40 AM Jagraj Singh gave a written report at Police Station Kotwali stating therein that on that date he and his son Jang Bahadur Singh @ Lal Bahadur Singh @ Kunwar Bahadur Singh, were present at their tube -well, the present appellant Vijay Pratap Singh, whose field was adjacent to their field on northern side came to the tube -well at about 7.00 AM and started abusing why water of his field was diverted to their field. When his son replied that he did not divert the water, Vijay Pratap Singh shot his son, who fell down, Vijay Pratap Singh showing his pistol ran away. Raj Karan Singh, Ram Kumar Singh and Tej Bahadur Singh saw the incident, complainant took his injured son by Riksha to Katka Khanpur, therefrom by Taxi to Sadar Hospital, Sultanpur, whereby he was declared dead. At this report chik FIR was scribed. Case Crime No. 153 of 1982 was registered, requisite entry was made in the general diary. Investigation was started. The Investigating Officer conducted the inquest proceedings, reached on the spot, inspected it and prepared the site plan, took the samples of blood stained and simple earth. The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and after completion of the investigation submitted the charge -sheet against the present appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Session whereby the appellant was charged under Section 302 I.P.C. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.) BESIDES documentary evidence prosecution examined seven witnesses. After close of prosecution evidence statement of the accused -appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused -appellant disputed the truthfulness of the statement of the eye witnesses pleaded ignorance about the injuries sustained by the deceased, his transportation to Sultanpur, about the postmortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased. According to him, he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. According to him, witnesses were deposing against him due to enmity between his father and brother of Jagraj Singh on account of litigation in consolidation proceedings.;