- (1.) RAJESHWAR Singh, J. The Sessions Court convicted Bachchu Lal Singh, Naib Singh, Sheo Narain Singh and Lalau Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. They have filed this appeal against their conviction and sentence.
(2.) THIS case relates to the murder of one Guji Singh. THIS Guji Singh assaulted accused Lalau Singh and this resulted in fracture of both the bones of a forearm of appellant Lalau Singh. Guji Singh was arrested and he was sent to jail. He was released on bail, two or three days after his release on bail and about 40 days after the earlier occurrence in which fracture was caused to accused Lalau Singh, the present incident occurred. On that day deceased Guji Singh alongwith some of his companions was going to market, from his village Patkhauli. They started from the village at about 11. 30 a. m. and reached at about 12. 30 noon near one pond called Gulai Talab. There the appellants met the deceased and his party. Appellant Sheo Narain Singh had a spear and remaining accused had lathis. They abused deceased Guji Singh and said that he would not be spare as he had assaulted accused Lalau Singh earlier and it had to be revenged. Appellants started attack with lathis and spear. His companions made a request that Guji Singh be spared but the appellants did not pay any hoed. The companions being unarmed could not do anything. The deceased Guji Singh ran towards the pond which was dry. The attack continued. Guji Singh fell down in the pond. Some persons residing nearby were seen coming towards the spot, then the appellants escaped. A charpai was brought by the companions of the deceased Guji Singh and they proceeded to take Guji Singh who was then alive on that charpai towards the Police Station. On the way Guji Singh died. Then one of the companions of Guji Singh, namely, Gajraj Singh P. W. 1 lodged the First Information Report at the Po ice Station at 3. 15 p. m. The distance of Police Station from village Khargoopur near which the incident took place, is five miles. Thereafter the usual investiga tion followed and finally charge-sheet was submitted resulting in conviction and sentence as said earlier. The Investigating Officer found blood stained earth at the spot and took it in his possession. In post-mortem examination ten injuries were found. They were contusions and punctured wounds. Accused pleaded not guilty and they asserted that they had been impli cated falsely out of ill-will. They did not lead any evidence. Besides the formal witnesses such as Doctor and Investigating Officer the prosecution examined three persons as eye-witnesses. They are Gajraj Singh P. W. 1, Deshraj Singh P. W. 2 and Jagdish Singh, P. W. 3. They all supported the case of prosecution and gave an eye-witness account in support of the prosecution case as has been mentioned earlier. The entire prosecution case rests on the reliability of these three witnesses.
(3.) IT may be pointed out at the very outset that one of these witnesses, namely, Deshraj Singh P. W. 2 is the brother of deceased Guji Singh, Gijraj Singh P. W. 1 and the deceased had a common great grand father. The last witness Jagdish Singh bad also common great grand father with the deceased. Thus all the three witnesses are such who are expected to have a soft corner for the deceased and who may be interested in conviction. But, this is no ground to disbelieve their evidence. We have only to look at their evidence with caution and if once their presence at the spot can be established beyond-reasonable doubt, it may not be difficult to accept the version given by them. But if their presence at the spot becomes doubtful, then they cannot be relied upon, because they will be interested in petition those persons convicted against whom they have suspicion that they are responsible for committing the murder. These three witnesses claim to have been present on the spot because according to all of them they were going to the market with the deceased as all of them had to make some purchases. So it becomes relevant to examine the theory whether these three witnesses and the deceased were going to market. On behalf of the appellants this theory of going to market is being attacked.;