- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. Since all three appeals have arisen out of the common impugned judgment and order dated 19-02- 1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Chamoli in S. T. No. 23/1990 State Vs. Ganga Singh and others, hence all these ap peals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judg ment. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant Mumtaz Ahmad and other appellants i. e. Ganga Singh, Pramod Kumar and Girish Chandra were convicted u/s 302 I. P. C. and u/s 302/341. PC. respectively and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellants Ganga Singh, Girish Chandra, Pramod Kumar and Mumtaz Ahmad were also held guilty under section 120-B I. P. C. and they were convicted accordingly.
(2.) THE facts, in nutshell, are that the deceased-Ramesh Chandra Joshi was the resident of village Dewal, Dis trict Chamoli and he was carrying on hotel business which was 10 metres away from his house. THE accused-ap pellant Mumtaz Ahmad used to run his shop of repairing watches, which was situated near the hotel of the deceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi. THE accused-appellants Ganga Singh and Girish Chandra were also running their busi ness in village Dewal. THE accused-ap pellant Pramod Kumar was vegetable vendor in the same village. Accused-appellants Ganga Singh, Girish Chandra and Mumtaz Ahmed used to take their food at the hotel of the deceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi due to which, money was due on them. THEy wanted to take their food free of cost, which was not acceptable to the deceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi. Due to this reason, their relations became strained with the deceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi. On 11-05-1990, at about 7:15 pm the accused-appellant Mumtaz Ahmad came to the hotel of the deceased in a drunken state and started quarrelling with the de ceased. THE accused- appellant Mumtaz was turned out by the deceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi from his hotel and in the meantime Ganga Singh, Girish Chandra and Pramod Kumar also arrived there and took Mumtaz Ahmad inside the shop of Girish Chandra and there they hatched a conspiracy against the de ceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi. THE ac cused-appellants stayed there till the time of happening of the incident. THEreaf ter, at about 10:30 pm on the same day i. e. 11-05-1990, the deceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi started going towards his house after finishing the work of his ho tel, whereas his brother Kailash Chandra PW4 and his servant Ranjeet Singh PW2 had stayed at the hotel to close it. When the deceased reached near the shop of accused-appellant Girish Chandra, all the accused-appellants started assaulting the deceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi and the accused Mumtaz Ahmad gave a knife blow on the deceased due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person. THE incident oc curred in between the shop of accused-appellant Girish Chandra and one Bhandari hotel where there was a bulb light of the electric pole. THE incident was witnessed by Kailash Chandra PW4, Ranjeet Singh PW2, Prem Chandra PW5 and Pratap Singh PW6. After throwing the knife, the accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence. In order to save the life of the deceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi, Kailash Chandra and other persons took the deceased to RH. C. , Dewal where the deceased was found already dead by Dr. S. S. Bhatia PW1, Medical Officer. THEreafter, Kailash Chandra PW4 brother of the deceased went to the Patwari Chauki, Patwari Kshetra Dewal and lodged a written report Ex. Ka. 4 at 11:30 pm on the same day i. e. 11-05-1990. On the basis of the written report, a Chick FIR Ex. Ka. 9 was prepared and necessary entry was made in the general diary. Gopal Ram PW7-Patwari investigated. the matter. THE Patwari went to the P. H. C. , Dewal and prepared the inquest report Ex. Ka. ll. He also visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan Ex. ka. 12. He took knife Ex. ka. 14 and Chappal Ex. ka. 13 from the place of occurrence. THEreafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem and statement of the wit nesses were taken. After completing the investigation, the Patwari-I. O. submitted the chargesheet Ex. Ka. 23 before the court. After submission of chargesheet the accused-appellants were committed to the court of Sessions for trial and the trial court framed charges against the appellants. The accused-appellants de nied the charges levelled against them and claimed their trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seven wit nesses. Dr. S. S. Bhatia PW1 has exam ined the deceased on 11-05-1990 at 11:00 pm in the RH. C. , Dewal and he declared Ramesh Chandra dead at 1:00 am. Ranjeet Singh PW2, who was work ing in the hotel of the deceased, was an eye-witness of the incident, but he has been declared hostile by the prosecution later on. Dr. Mayank Upadhyaya PW3 is the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He proved the postmortem report Ex. Ka. 3. Kailash Chandra PW4 is the eyewitness of the incident. He is brother of the deceased and he scribed the written re port. Prem Chandra PW5 and Pratap Singh PW6 are the witnesses of the in cident and they reached at the spot af ter hearing the hue and cry of Kailash Chandra PW4 and they found the de ceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi has re ceived the injuries on his person and they came to know at the spot that ac cused-appellant Mumtaz had given the knife blows to the deceased. Gopal Ram PW7 is the Patwari and Investigating Officer of the case. He proved the chick FIR Ex. ka. 9, copy of the G. D. , panchnama Ex. ka. 11 and site plan Ex. ka. 12 etc. After completing the inves tigation, he submitted the chargesheet Ex. ka. 23. The accused-appellants have not adduced any evidence in their de fence.
(3.) THE accused-appellants were ex amined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. and they have pleaded not guilty to the charges. How ever, the accused-appellants Girish Chandra and Mumtaz have accepted about the carrying on hotel business by the deceased Ramesh Chandra Joshi and having his hotel in Dewal where the accused Mumtaz Ahmad had also his shop of watches. THE rest of the ac cused-appellants have expressed igno rance about these facts. All the appel lants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Girish Chandra has stated that he was not present at the spot at the time of the incident because his father was ill and he has to attend his father daily. The learned Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence held the ac cused-appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.;