- (1.) BHANWAR Singh, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Decem ber 15, 1979, passed in Sessions Trial No. 468 of 1979, by Ilnd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi, convicting the appellants under Section 302/34, I. P. C. and sentencing them to rigorous imprison ment for life and a fine of Rs. 4. 000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal maybe narrated as below: Sri Chhotey Lal, son of Sri Baldco, resident of village Misripur, district Har doi submitted a written report to the Sta tion Officer, Beniganj Police Station, slat ing therein that his son Chandrashekhar alias Punne had been killed by the accused Chhail Behari, Chhotey Lal, son of Prabhu Dayal, Raj Kumar and Banshidhar at about 10 p. m. on 5-1-1976. Describing details of the brutal murder of Chandrashekhar alongwith the back ground in which the offence was alleged to have been committed, the complainant Chhotey Lal stated that his house and that of the main accused Chhail Behari were situated in front of each other with a lane in between the two houses. Chhail Behari bore animosity with the complainant on account of the past litigation in between the two. Fifteen days prior to this occur rence, Chhail Behari had murmured in the village in presence of a few village men that he had seen the complainant's son Chandrashekhar alias Punne since deceased in compromising position with Shyama (Chhail Behari's sister-in-law, who was in village for some time ). At this juncture, Chandrashekhar was just a lad of about 17 years of age and Chhail Behari's sister-in-law Shyama was about 36 years old married woman and a mother of two children. The illicit relationship between Chandrashekhar and Shyama lowered down the family prestige of the accused Chhail Behari and he felt disturbed, as a young boy living in front of his house, played with his reputation. Not only that the prime accused Chhail Behari conveyed this fact of illegal relationship between the two, but he also vowed in presence of several villagers that he would teach a les son to Chandrashekhar. Also he had as saulted his sister-in-law Shyama and sent her back to her Sasural in a different vil lage. In order to wreak his vengeance the accused Chhail Behari accompanied by his sister's son-in-law Chhotey Lal and the latter's brother Raj Kumar as also a rela tion, namely, Banshidhar (all appellants) came to the house of the complainant at about 9 or 10 p. m. on 5-1- 1976. It was a chilly night and the complainant and his family members including Chandrashek har were warning themselves while sitting in his Barotha around bonfire. In the meantime, the accused Chhail Behari gave an affectionate call from outside asking Chandrashekhar to come of his house. At tracted by the said call, Chandrashekhar went out of the Barotha and being curious enough the complainant and other family members also followed him. The com plainant, his wife and sons were shocked to witness that Chandrashekhar was being bundled out by all the four accused appellants. The accused had a brief conversation with Chandrashekhar and in the process, Chhail Behari thrust his Angochha (towel) in the mouth of Chandrashekhar for help or raising any shrieks. Whereas Chhail Behari was armed with a Banka, the accused Chhotey Lal was having a Kanta in his hand. The other two accused, namely, Raj Kumar and Banshidhar were armed with a gun and a country-made pistol respectively. Chhotey Lal and Raj Kumar forcibly lifted Chandrashekhar and proceeded towards the jungle and travers ing through the village streets, all the accused took him away into the grove of Ram Avtar situated at the out-skirt of the vil lage. The complainant and other family members on having witnessed the accused taking away Chandrashekhar forcibly, raised hue and cry, attracted by which there came many villagers including Baijnath, Manohar and Ram Lotan. These villagers, when endeavored to challenge the ac cused, were threatened of dire consequen ces by the accused who fired numerous airy shots to scare them away. Despite the threat hurled by the accused, the com plainant and villagers kept on chasing the accused maintaining a safe distance. When the accused arrived at the grove of Ram Autar, the villagers heard the report of gun fire and when they came a little closer to grove land, they saw Chandrashekhar being butchered by the accused. On the pressure being created by the villagers, the accused ran away leaving behind the dead body of Chandrashekhar. The com plainant and his family members as also the villagers when arrived at the site of occurrence, found that Chandrashekhar had died by then with his head almost severed from his body. The throat and neck of the deceased had been completely cut, as a result of which the head was hanging against the body on a thin tag of skin. The complainant got the report Ex. Ka-1 written by his son Gaya Prasad. However, he could not muster courage to go to the Police Station during the night as he had strong apprehension of his being eliminated by Chhail Behari and others. On the following day, the complainant went to the police station and submitted his report whereupon Chik F. I. R. was drawn and a case under Section 302, I. P. C. registered. The Station Officer Iftedar Hussain took up for himself the task of investigation and immediately he proceeded to the site of occurrence. First of all, the dead-body was examined, its report was prepared and after being packed and sealed, it was sent Compost-mortem. The Investigating Officer then prepared the site plan Ext. Ka-12 and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He examined the lantern which was al leged to be burning in the Barotha of the complainant and also the torches in the light of which Baijnath, Manohar and Gaya Prasad had seen the accused while chasing them. Memos of these articles were prepared. The three accused, namely, Chhail Behari, Raj Kumar and Banshidhar were arrested while the fourth Chhotey Lal surrendered himself in the Court on 23-1-1976. On having completed all the formalities of the investigation, the Sta tion Officer of Beniganj Police Station submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka-15 against the accused. As many as seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. Whereas P. W. 1 Chhotey Lal, P. W. 2 Ram Lotan and P. W. 3 Gaya Prasad were the eye-witnesses, the remaining four were formal witnesses. P. W. 4 Sqmpal Singh was posted as Sub-Inspector at PS. Beniganj. He prepared the inquest report'and sent the dead-body of Chandrashekhar for autopsy. He had also collected pallets which were on the body of the deceased. P. W. 5 Dr. J. K. Verma examined the dead body and prepared the post-mortem report Ext. Ka-11. P. W. 6 Iftedar Hussain is the Investigating Officer of this case. P. W. 7, Girdhari, the Chaukidar of the village, had taken the dead-body of Chandrashek har for post-mortem.
(3.) THE defence version was that the accused had been falsely implicated in this case. Chhail Behari revealed before the trial Court that Chandrashekhar was a boy of loose character and he had illegal con nections with Pasi girls Ganga Devi and Launga. THE family members of these girls were behind his murder. Such family mem bers had killed Chandrashekhar and thrown the dead-body in the grove of Ram Avtar. THE other three accused disclosed that they were falsely implicated in this case on account of their relationship with Chhailbehari. On a close scrutiny of the prosecu tion evidence and the defence version, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that Chandrashekhar was brutally murdered by the accused appellants on the night of occurrence and accordingly a verdict of the accused being guilty of the offence under Section 302/34, I. P. C. was recorded. In the result the accused were convicted and sen tenced to rigorous imprisonment for life as indicated earlier, besides a fine of Rs. 4,000 against each of them.;