- (1.) THIS bail ap peal is directed against the judgment of con viction and sentence dated 13-6-1980 for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34, I. P. C. and 323 with 34,i. P. C. passed by the Sessions Judge, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1979 against the accused-appel lant Badlu and his three sons, namely, Tulsi, Ganga Ram and Hem Raj; these four ac cused- appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the of fence uner Section 302 read with 34 and for a period of one year R. I. each for the offence under Section 323 read with 34,i. P. C. It is pertinent to note here that one of the con victed and sentenced four accused-appel lants, namely, Badlu has died during the pendency of this appeal, hence his appeal has abated.
(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, runs thus: One Bhagant had four sons, namely, Moti Lal, Badlu (accused), Raghubar and Jia Lal alias Jilal. Moti Lal had died about 35 years back while Bhagant died after the death of Moti Lal. THE agricultural land measuring about 56 Bighas was in the name of Bhagant and his sons Raghubar, accused Badlu and complainant Jia Lal had posses sion over it. According to the prosecution Bhagant had got the land leased out in the name of Badlu. Further, the prosecution case is that there had been some dispute between these brothers, namely, accused Badlu, Raghubar and Jia Lal in respect of the consolidation of holding going on in regard of the agricultural land, and at the time of the incident in question the appeal was pending in the Court of Deputy Direc tor of Consolidation. According to the prosecution, on the date of the incident, i. e. , 10-11-1977 at about 11 a. m. complainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1), his son Maiku and wife Ram Rati had gone to the field for sowing Gojai crop; Raghubar (deceased) and his daughter Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) had also gone to sow Gojai crop; the field of Raghubar was on the east ern side of the field of complainant Jia Lal; field of accused- appellant was also situated towards the east and south of the field of Jia Lai; complainant Jia Lal and Raghubar (deceased) were ploughing their field while Jia Lai's wife and Smt. . Ganga Dei, daughter of deceased Raghubar were sowing the field, Jia Lai's son Maiku was digging corners of the field. Meanwhile accused-appellant Badlu and his sons Tulsi, Ganga Ram and Mem Raj reached over there and challenged to deal with Jia Lal, Raghubar and others; they were armed with Kantas and Lathis; accused persons Tulsi and Hem Raj were armed with Kantas, while Badlu and Ganga Ram were armed with Lathis. All these four accused-appellants, after giving challenge to deal with Raghubar and others, started atatacking with their weapons upon Raghubar. Complainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1), Ganga Dei (P. W 6) and Maiku made hue and cry and rushed for help; then accused-appellant Badlu attacked Jia Lal (P. W. 1 ). with Lathi blow and caused injuries in his hand; Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) was attacked by accused- appellant Ganga Ram with Lathi and she also sustained injuries on her person. These victims raised alarm and then persons present near by, namely, Ram Bilas (P. W. 4), Rameshwar (P. W. 5), Mewa Lal, Chhedi Lal, Nokhey and others reached over there and they shouted, then the ac cused persons ran away and made good their escape. Raghubar had sustained multiple Kama and Lathi injuries and he succumbed to those injuries on the spot itself. According to the prosecution the complainant, Jia Lal (P. W 1) went to the Police-Station alongwith Bhakher Chaukidar and one Ram Kishan and lodged the first information report (Ext. Ka 1) at 4. 30 p. m. , it was written by Head Constable Jwala Prasad. He sent the report to the Sta tion House Officer Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) through Constable Lallu Singh (P. W. 8 ). The Investigating Officer Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) reached the village Bhikhnapur and started the investigation in the case. He found that the deadbody of Raghubar was lying in the latter's field. He prepared the inquest report (Ext. Ka-6) and sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination to the hospital. He also recorded the statement of the wit nesses and sent the injured Ganga Dei (P. W. 6) for her medical examination; the com plainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1) had already been sent for his medical examination. Their medical examinations were done. The autopsy on the deadbody of Raghubar was done by Dr. Gopalji Ojha (P. W. 2) who found nine injuries on his person, out of which eight were incised wounds and one was contusion. According to him the death of Raghubar was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. Post- mortem report is (Ext. Ka-2 ). The injuries on the persons of complainant Jia Lal (P. W. 1) and Ganga Dei (P. W 6) were found to have been caused by blunt object; they were simple in nature. The Investigat ing Officer had also seized and sealed the simple and bloodstained earth from the place of occurrence. He also prepared "site-plan (Ext. Ka-11 ). After completing inves tigation in the case the Investigating Of ficer, Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) submitted the charge-sheet in the Court.
(3.) CHARGES for the offence under Sec tions 302 read with 34,i. P. C. and 323 read with 34,i. P. C. were framed against the ac cused persons. They were read over and explained to them; they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. According to them they had been falsely implicated due to en mity. To prove its case the prosecution examined nine witnesses, out of whom three witnesses, namely, Jwala Prasad- (P. W. 7), Lallu Singh (P. W 8) and Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) are police witnesses, the last witness Gopal Singh (P. W. 9) is the Investigating Officer. Dr. A. K. Srivastava (P. W. 3) ex amined the injured complainant Jia Lal while Gopal Ji Ojha (P. W. 2) had conducted the autopsy on the deadbody of Raghubar. The rest of the witnesses, namely, Jia Lal (P. W. 1), the complainant, Smt. Ganga Dei (P. W. 6), the daughter of deceased Raghubar, Ram Bilas (P. W. 4) and Ramesh-war (P. W. 5) are the eye-witnesses, the letter two reached the spot on hearing the alarm raised by Jia Lal, Smt. Ganga Dei and others. Thus, these four witnesses are the eye-witnesses and naturally they are impor tant ones. Learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had been successful in bringing horn the guilt of the accused per sons, they had been charged with, and, thus, he convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge accused persons have preferred this appeal. As already ob served above, the accused-appellant Badlu had died and hence his appeal has abated.;