- (1.) MADAN Mohan Lal, J. -This an appeal against a judgment and order dated 4-10-1978 passed by Sri P. K. Jain, the then Vllth Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad by which he has convicted Chhotey Lal and Shambhoo appellants under Sections 302/114 and 201, IPC and has sentenced each of them to life imprisonment under Section 302/201, I. P. C. (instead of Sections 302/114, I. P. C. for which they were convicted) and three years R. I. under Section 201, I. P. C. He has further convicted Ladlay Shankar appellant under Sec tions 302, 307 and 201, I. P. C. and has sentenced him to under go life imprison ment, R. I. for seven years and R. I. for three years respectively thereunder. The sentences of all the appellants have been made to run concurrently.
(2.) CHHOTEY Lal appellant is the father of Ladlay Shankar appellant. Shambhoo appellant is the uncle of CHHOTEY Lal appellant. P. W. 1 Ram Shankar, informant, P. W. 2 Shiv Shankar and Hari Shankar are the sons of Goverdhan Lal deceased. There was a well on the boundaries of the fields of Goverdhan Lal deceased and the appellants. Goverdhan Lal deceased had filed a suit with respect to the said well in the year 1973 againgst Chhotey Lal and Shambhoo appellants, etc. In the same the defendents, by way of an interim order were restrained from interfering with the rights of Goverdhan Lal deceased in taking water from the said well. On 16-2-1974 the said interim injunction was modified by way of which the defendents were permitted to take electric con nection and energize the said tube well. The right of Goverdhan Lal deceased to take water from the said tube well was not disturbed. In the year 1976 prior to the murder, Goverdhan Lal deceased had moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2 (A), C. P. C. praying for action against the defendants on the ground that by restraining him from taking water from the said tube well they had flouted the order. Vide an order dated 16-8-1976 the learned Munsif allowed the said application and besides imposing a fine on the defen dants sentenced them to one month's civil imprisonment. The appellants were thus harbouring enmity against Goverdhan Lal deceased who was making demand to take water from the said tube well.
(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution on 30-11-1976 at about 11 a. m. Goverdhan Lal deceased started digging a pit in his field, adjoining the aforesaid tube well within a view to take water from the said tube well. At that time ladlay Shankar appellant, armed with a gun and the remaining two appellants, armed with lathis went there. The appellants told Goverdhan Lal deceased that because the tube well belonged to them they would not allow him to take water from the same. They, therefore, asked him not to dig the said pit. Goverdhan Lal deceased did not aggree and said that because the Court had passed orders against them hence he would draw the water. Thereupon Chhotey Lal and Shambhoo exhorted Ladlay Shankar appellant to kill Goverdhan Lal. On the same Ladlay Shankar appellant, fired two shots from his gun killing Goverdhan Lal instantaneously. Ram Shankar, informant, with his two brothers Shiv chankar and Hari Shankar, who were nearby, saw the occurrence. Ladlay Shankar, appellant fired shots at them but the same did not hit them. Hueandery was raised which attracted witnesses to the place of occurrence. Chhotey Lal appellant by placing the deadbody of Goverdhan Lal on his back and Shambhoo appellant holding his legs took the deadbody towards a nearby river. The appellants had advanced threat that if anybody came be would be done away with. P. W. 1 Ram Shanker went to the police station Kannawj, situated at a distante of four miles, where he handed over a written report of the incident on the same day at 12. 30 p. m.;