BHAGWAN BUX SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant No. 1 Bhagwan Bux Singh has been convicted under S. 302 and sentenced to death, while Mohan Singh appellant No. 2 has been convicted under S. 302/34, I. P. C. for having aided the appellant No. 1 in causing the death of the deceased, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The trial court as also the High Court have given full narration of the prosecution case, which appears to be the result of an old family feud between the parties. The murder of the deceased took place on the 9th October at about 6 p.m. in a bazar when Mohan Singh appears to have entered into an altercation with the deceased and caught hold of him, and thereafter the appellant No. 1 inflicted several banka (a sharp cutting instrument) blows on the various parts of the body of the deceased, as a result of which he fell down and died. There are as many as nine incised injuries on the various parts of the body of the deceased, particularly the skull, and according to the doctor, the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the skull injury.

(2.) The defence was that the deceased was assaulted by somebody else and the appellants have been falsely implicated due to the enmity. Both the courts below have carefully scanned the evidence and have come to the conclusion that the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court has repelled almost all the arguments and comments that were made against the prosecution evidence and found that the deceased was murdered by appellant No. 1, as alleged by the prosecution. In these circumstances, therefore, we do not see any reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. Ws. 4, 9 and 10 who are independent and natural witnesses and have been believed by the two Courts of fact. The F. I. R. was also lodged promptly within half an hour of the incidents and the broad details of the occurrence are mentioned therein. We are, therefore, satisfied that the conviction of appellant No. 1 does not call for any interference.

(3.) As regards appellant No. 2, Mohan Singh, it appears from the F. I. R. that he was not catching hold of the hands of the deceased at the time when the deceased was being assaulted by appellant No. 1 as is the prosecution case developed in the court. In the F. I. R. all that is stated is as follows:-