S.S.Kulshrestha, J. - (1.) These both the appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 5.3.1982 passed by the Sessions Judge, Etawah in ST. No. 493 of 1978 whereby convicting Smt. Prem Wati @ Bengalin, Devesh @ Chandra, Yogesh @ Yogendra Narain and Mahendra Narain @ Basant for the offence under Section 302/149 IPC for the murder of Satya Narain and separately convicting for the offences under Section 302/149 IPC for the murder of Dev Kunwar and Smt. Savitri and separately awarding sentence for life imprisonment for these offences and also convicting Sri Basant and Yogesh @ Yogendra Kumar for the offence under Section 147 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further holding Madho Ram Shukla guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Deo Kunwar and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life j and also convicting him for the offences under Section 302/149 IPC for the murder of Smt. Savitri and Satya Narain and awarding life imprisonment separately?, for those murders. Further holding Smt. Prem Wati @ Bengalin, Devesh @ Devesh Chandra and Madho Ram Shukla guilty for the offence under Section 148 IPC; and also awarding two years rigorous imprisonment to each of them. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) At this stage it may be mentioned that Devesh @ Devendra Narain s/o Raj Bahadur died during the pendency of the trial. Proceeding of the case stobd. abated against him. Further Devesh Chandra @ Devesh of Lavedi s/o Raj Bahadur and Yogendra Narain @ Yogesh s/o Ram Bharose were reported dead. The proceedings: of the appeal also stood abated against them. Now these appeals remain confined to the surviving appellants namely Smt. Prem Wati @ Bengalin. Mahendra Narain @ Basant and Madho Ram.
(3.) it is said that the trial court has not properly appreciated the materials and evidence on record. Merely on conjecture and surmises established the guilt against the accused appellants. There is no perceivable motive for the appellants to have any animosity towards the deceased in particular Smt. Deo Kunwar and Smt. Savitri. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution. All those who claimed to be eyewitnesses of the incident are closely related to the deceased and no credence can be attached to their testimony. These witnesses were really not present at the spot as they did not rush up for the rescue of the deceased. Further emphasis has also been laid that the genesis of the incident is shrouded with mystery and there is no proximate cause established that why the appellants would do away with the life of Dev Kunwar and Smt. Savitri by pursuing common object. To the contrary it is decipherable from the materials on record that Ram Bharose Lal, husband of Smt. Prem Wati @ Bengalin was murdered at about one year back from the place of incident. Its report was also lodged by Shyam Lal. In that report he nominated Tej Singh Yadav and Rajjan Lal as accused, excluding name of his son Satya Narain (who is one of the deceased in this case). In the report Shyam Lal and Govind s/o Ram Bharose Lal (deceased of that case) were witnesses. Govind in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also referred the name of Satya Narain (deceased of this case), involved in the murder of his father Ram Bharose Lal. Satya Narain was enlarged on bail in that case. He was not named in the FIR. But other accused nominated in the FIR suffered incarceration and were not let of on bail. This was the reason for their being hostile to Satya Narain. Tej Singh Yadav and his brothers all were hardened criminals. They settled their dispute with Satya Narain who was instrumental in causing] the death of Ram Bharose Lal with the hired assassins and got himself excluded from the report. To the contrary it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that there is ample evidence on record to show the complicity of the accused appellants. There was sufficient motive to the accused appellants to have killed Satya Narain and other two persons of his family who came for his rescue. The testimony of the witnesses remained through but consistent and with the common objective they participated in the incident with lethal weapons. The testimony of the witnesses cannot] be discarded merely because they are related to the deceased. Their testimony] also finds corroboration from the medial report.;