- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. Accused respondents Virendra Kumar, Arjun Prasad and Jamuna Prasad were tried in Sessions Trial No. 424 of 1980 by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad on a charge under section 307/34 IPC and the Trial Judge acquitted them by judgment and order dated 12. 3. 1982. Two of the ac cused Virendra Kumar and Jamuna Prasad have expired and only Arjun Prasad Sur vives.
(2.) THE State comes in appeal. The short facts of the case are that, a first information report was lodged by P. W. 2 Harish Chandra on 5. 10. 1979 at 10 O'clock in the night at Police Station Daraganj, District Allahabad, with regard to an incident which took place at 7. 30 p. m. in front of 18-Daraganj, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Daraganj, Allahabad. The allegations were that a litiga tion was pending between father of the informant Ganga Prasad P. W. 1 and his uncle accused Jamuna Prasad. Around 7. 30 O'clock in the evening when the father of the informant was going to fetch Tan' and 'biries' from his house, accused Virendra Kumar exhorted accused Jamuna Prasad and his son Arjun Prasad to kill Ganga Prasad and at this instigation, as alleged that Jamuna Prasad wielded a Lathi blow on the father of the informant while his son accused Arjun Prasad assaulted him with the knife causing injuries in his person, Amar Nath, Bhola and the informant witnessed the incident. It is said that thereaf ter, the informant took his father Ganga Prasad to District Hospital, Allahabad, where he was examined and treated for his injuries and the informant along with the written report went to the police station for lodging the first information report.
(3.) THE investigation of the case was assigned to P. W. 4 S. I. Panna Lal Verma, who submitted a charge- sheet against the aforesaid three accused under section 307/34 IPC. The prosecution examined Ganga Prasad P. W. 1 Harish Chandra P. W. 2, Dr. K. P. Sarabhai P. W. 3 and S. I. Panna Lal Verma P. W. 4 in the prosecution evidence. The case of the accused was one of denial and no witness was examined in defence.;