- (1.) M. C. Jain, J. Appellant Ram Chandra has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 5-11-80 passed by Sri B. K. Mishra, the then III Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in S. T. No. 68 of 1980. He has been con victed under Section 302 I. P. C. and sen tenced to imprisonment for life.
(2.) THE broad spectrum of the prosecution case as per the EI. R. and the evidence may be set forth briefly. THE ac cused-appellant and his brother Amar Singh were living in village Umarsaria, Police Station Paraur, District Shahjahan-pur for the last about 10 or 12 years. THEir father's Nanihal was in that village. THE accused had purchased the northern por tion of the house of Sunder Lal PW 2 where he used to live with his brother Amar Singh. THE entrance of the house of Sundar Lal P W 2 was from the eastern side on which side there was a Chabutra. From the Chabutra, portion of the accused could be reached only through the portion of the house in possession of Sundar Lal. Zalim Singh P W1, Sundar Lal P W 2 and Sikhdar Singh PW3werealso residents of the same village. Accused-appellant Ram Chandra and his brother Amar Singh had some dispute over property and to resolve the same, a Panchayat was being held on 15-1-80 at about 9 a. m. at the Chabutra of Sun dar Lal PW 2. Accused- appellant Ram Chandra, his brother Amar Singh, another Amar Singh, Zalim Singh PW 1, Sundar Lal PW 2. Sikhdar Singh PW 3 and deceased Hulasi were present in the Panchayat. THE deceased Hulasi was the Beano of Zalim Singh PW 1 and he used to live with him. THE incident took place during the course of Panchayat. When the accused's brother demanded his share from him, the accused declined to give his share. Hulasi told the accused that he was dishonest and wanted to cheat his brother Amar Singh. THE accused became enraged and abused Hulasi. He went in the house of Sundar Lal PW 2 and returned with an illicit gun. He opened fire on Hulasi who died thereby. Zalim Singh PW 1, lodged an EI. R. of the incident the same day at 1 p. m. THE distance of police station was six miles from the spot. A case under Section 302 I. P. C. was registered against the accused-appellant Ram Chandra. THE investiga tion was taken up by S. I. , Janardan Singh PW 5. THE dead body was sent for post mortem. On conclusion of the investiga tion a chargesheet was laid against the accused- appellant. The post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr. P. S. Verma PW 6 on 17- 1-80 at 3. 30 p. m. The deceased was aged about 50 years and about 2-1/4 days had passed since he died. The following ante-mortem injury was found on his person: A firearm wound 6 cm x 4 cm x chest cavity deep on right side of chest 6 cm below and laterally from right nipple. Oval in shape. Black ening 1/4 cm encircling the wound present. Mar gins inverted. No exit wound present. Direction from downwards to upwards and medially. Twenty pellets with wadding pieces recovered from right side chest. Eight pellets removed from right lung and fourteen removed from chest cavity. Wadding pieces recovered from (Rt.) lung. Laceration of lung from anterior to posterior was present in the area of firearm injury. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. At the trial, the prosecution ex amined in all six witnesses out of whom Zalim Singh PW 1, Sundar Lal PW 2 and Sikhdar Singh PW 3 were examined as eye- witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, before whom the trial was held, believed the prosecution case and evidence. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above.
(3.) WE have heard Sri P. N. Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned A. G. A. from theside of State. The argument of the learned coun sel for the accused-appellant is that Sun dar Lal PW 2 and Sikhdar Singh PW 3 turned hostile and the prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of Zalim Singh PW 1 who is an interested witness being the brother-in-law of the deceased. It has been urged that the conviction could not be based on his sole testimony. In the alternative, it has been submitted that there was no in tention on the part of the accused-appel lant to cause death of the victim and as such the case, at the best, is of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.;