Ranjana Pandya, J. - (1.) The accused appellants have challenged the order dated 03.06.1997, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly, in Sessions Trial No. 302 of 1995 (State v/s. Prem Pal and another), arising out of Case Crime No. 229 of 1990, under Sec. 304 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(2)(vii) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Bareilly, whereby the appellants were acquitted for the charges under Sec. 3(2)(vii) SC/ST Act. Both the appellants were found guilty under Sec. 304 I.P.C. and sentenced for 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each with default stipulation.
(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that a first information report was lodged by Chhangey Lal stating that he and his son the deceased Harpal were sent to District Jail, Bareilly on 03.02.1990. They were not assaulted by the police personnel of Police Station, Faridpur but they were challaned from the Police Station Faridpur. When they were admitted to jail on 03.02.1990, the accused appellants Prem Pal and Narottam who were Constables in the jail demanded bribe, but due to fear the informant stated that when their family members would come to meet them, they would give the bribe. When the family members came to meet the appellants, even then the palms of the accused were not greased due to which both the appellants became enmical with the informant and his son Harpal and made both the father and the son do "bad work", used abusive language and caste relating words at which the son of the informant namely Harpal started abusing the appellants. On 09.02.1990, the son of the informant namely Harpal and the appellants had altercations due to which the appellants Prem Pal and Narottam assaulted Harpal in barrack No. 8 in which the informant and his son was detained in the presence of the other under trials. The appellant further said that Harpal was a lunatic and he could only be cured by beating. Harpal sustained injuries. Next day, the barrack of both the father and son were changed. The father was sent in barrack No. 7 and Harpal was sent in barrack No. 6 and appellants continued the demand of bribe. On 11.02.1990, groats was distributed in breakfast, but due to injuries, Harpal came late to take his breakfast due to which the jail Constables Prem Pal and Narottam assaulted Harpal with danda which was witnessed by other under trials and the informant. On that date the informant was compelled to work in a "Girdha". When the informant was working in the "Girdha", Harpal was brought there and assaulted by both the appellants and iron fetters were put on his feet. Both the appellants and the under trial Chuttiman pulled Harpal and detained him in isolation in jail. On 04:00 P.M., in the evening after finishing his work when the informant went to see his son who was kept in isolation, his son told him that all the three had assaulted him and he also showed his injuries to the informant. Who requested the jail doctor to treat his son and also requested that he be admitted in the jail hospital. The jail doctor admitted the informant in the hospital and gave medicines to Harpal in the isolation ward. The informant remained in the hospital and served his son. The appellants and Chuttiman assaulted Harpal now and again. When his condition deteriorated, on 18.02.1990, he was referred to District Hospital where he died on 24.02.1990, due to injuries received by assault in District Jail caused by Narottam, Prem Pal and Chuttiman. After the death of his son, the informed obtained parole. When he came out from jail, he lodged the first information report on 08.03.1990.
(3.) Investigation was entrusted to the Investigating Officer R.G. Gaur, PW -19. He recorded the statement of the informant Chhangey Lal on 19.10.1992. on 18.11.1992, he inspected the place of incident in the District Jail at the pointing out of the informant. He prepared the site plan which was proved as Exhibit Ka -29. He recorded the statement of the jail doctor and submitted charge sheet against the accused which was proved as Exhibit Ka -30. He sought for permission to prosecute the accused Narottam which was proved as Exhibit Ka -31. The permission for prosecution as regards the accused Prem Pal is concerned was proved Exhibit Ka -32. This witness proved the letters as Exhibits Ka -33 and Ka -34.;