STATE OF U P Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of U.P. is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing acquittal of the present respondents 4 to 6 while upholding the conviction of respondents 1 to 3, namely, Raja Ram, Ram Nath, and Ram Prasad, with the alteration that they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC), instead of Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Conviction for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 148 IPC was set aside. The High Court set aside the conviction of Devender, Chhotey Lal and Subhash who are respondents 4 and 6 in this appeal.

(2.) Respondents faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Sections 149, 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia found the accused persons guilty and sentenced each to undergo imprisonment for life and one year respectively in respect of three offences.

(3.) Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows: On 10.4.1984 Yadunath Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was going from his village Bankat to village Jigirsar for some work. When he was near the Government Tube-well and the field of Balchand, all the respondents surrounded him. Time was about 6.30 a.m. respondents Raja Ram and Ram Nath were having Spears while all other had lathis. On exhortation of accused Ram Prasad, respondents Raja Ram and Ram Nath started assaulting Yadunath with spear and rest with lathi. On the alarm raised by the victim, his son Babban Chauhan (PW-1), Ram Lal, Roop Narain (PW- 2), Kamal Nath and Ors. were attracted to the scene of occurrence. Seeing the pressure being mounted with the arrival of witnesses accused persons ran away with their respective weapons. Babban Chauhan (PW-1) son of the deceased, himself wrote down the First Information Report (Ex. Ka 1) and carried the same along with victim Yadunath to P.S. Khejuri where F.I.R. was recorded and the investigation was undertaken. After completion of investigation charge sheet was placed. Accused person pleaded false implication. They examined one witness DW-1 and exhibited certain documents to show that the complainant was inimical to them.