VIRENDRA KUMAR CHAMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is accused no.3. The Trial Court convicted him for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). One Jaggilal, a brother of the deceased Harilal, was the complainant. He is the first informant. He stated that on 20/6/2005, his brother, deceased Harilal, was conversing with one Mohan Lal at around 6:30 p.m. At that time, accused nos.1 and 2, holding pistols in their hand, and the present appellant, holding a knife in his hand, came there with the intention of killing the deceased. Accused nos.1 and 2 fired on Harilal with their pistols. Harilal entered Mevalal's house. He was shouting. The three accused, while chasing him, entered Mevalal's house and again fired pistols. The appellant assaulted him by using a knife.

(2.) PW1 -Ram Sumer is another brother of the deceased who also claims to be an eyewitness. We may note here that Jaggilal, another brother of the deceased who had filed the complaint, died before the trial started. The appellant's conviction is based on evidence of PW1 Ram Sumer.

(3.) With the assistance of learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the State, we have carefully perused the evidence of PW1.