N.S.Gupta - (1.) THE accused appellant Ram Kailash who was convicted under Section 307/452, I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years under Section 307, I.P.C. and one year under Section 452, I.P.C. and accused appellants Ram Lakhan and Ram Surat who were convicted under Section 307/452/34, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years under Section 307, I.P.C. and one year under Section 452, I.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 22.5.79 passed by the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Allahabad, Sri Govind Prasad have come up in appeal before this Court.
(2.) THE prosecution claimed that on 20.9.1977 at about 6.00 a.m. in village Himachal ka purwa, P. S. Sarai Aqil, district Allahabad, accused Ram Lakhan opened fire by means of a gun on the exhortation of Ram Lakhan and Ram Surat inside the house of the injured Ram Pratap and caused injuries to him. The F.I.R. was lodged by the injured Ram Pratap at P. S. Sarai Aqil at 8.10 a.m., the same day, i.e., just within two hours of the occurrence. It appears that the Investigating Officer S.I. Rajendra Pal Misra, D.W. 1 had submitted a final report into the matter. The injured thereafter filed a criminal complaint in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad on 16.10.77. After needful trial, the accused appellants were convicted as aforesaid. Hence the appeal. I have heard Sri P. N. Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. B. Singh, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State ; considered their contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the accused appellants that only the role of Instigation was assigned to the accused Ram Lakhan and Ram Surat according to the statement of the injured Ram Pratap. These accused persons were armed with lathies and they did not cause any injury to the complainant. IT was argued that these two accused persons were falsely arrayed in the case due to the enmity and, therefore, they deserve to be given the benefit of doubt. It is clear from the statement of the Ram Pratap, P.W. 1 that the houses of Ram Lakhan and Ram Surat are situate at a distance of 20 steps from his house. It has also come in the evidence of Ram Pratap that all the three accused appellants are related as cousin brothers. According to the statement of Ram Pratap, only the main accused appellant Ram Kailash bore enmity with the complainant on the point of his servant. It was accused appellant Ram Kailash alone who is said to have assaulted the servant of the complainant about 15-20 days before the date of occurrence of this case. The other two accused persons, namely. Ram Lakhan and Ram Surat did not bear any sort of enmity with the complainant. It is, therefore, probable for me to believe that the accused appellants Ram Lakhan and Ram Surat were dragged into this case because of their relationship with the accused appellant Ram Lakhan. I, therefore, consider It safe to give these two appellants, benefit of doubt and to acquit them.;