RAM BHAROSEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal by Special Leave is directed against Judgment dated August 17, 2004 rendered by Division Bench High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 828 of 1981 by which the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in S.T. No. 120 of 1980 is confirmed.

(2.) The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under :- The first informant i.e. Bhure Lal had gone to Shamsabad, Agra (U.P.) on December 30, 1979 at the Filter Centre of one Ravi Pandit to take diesel. He was accompanied by his son Puran Singh and two residents of his own village namely Rajendra and Pohan Singh. Only the son of the first informant got two cans of diesel. The first informant with his son and others was returning home at about 3.00 to 3.15 P.M. When he was at a distance of 40 to 50 steps from Ram Khera Toll Naka, he was accosted by (1) Ram Bharose (the appellant herein), (2) Jagge, (3) Munna and (4) Brijendra. On spotting Puran Singh, the accused told that Puran should not be permitted to return alive. The appellant and Jagge had Tamanchas with them. Accused Jagge told Puran Singh that he would take revenge for the death of his father and was free to flee anywhere. Seeing danger to his life, Puran Singh started running for his life, leaving his bicycle and shoes. The appellant and Jagge fired shots at him by Katta but no bullet hit him. Puran Singh was running towards village and when he attempted to take shelter in the house of Karua, he found that the said house was closed. Therefore, he started running by the side of Mango tree. Both the appellant and Jagge who were closely following him fired shots at him but the bullets hit the Mango tree. When Puran Singh was running towards Filter Centre after crossing the road, the appellant and Jagge as well as Brijendra and Munna surrounded him near Shisham tree. Brijendra and Munna caught his hands after which the appellant fired a shot at him from his Tamancha which hit his chest. On receiving bullet injury Puran fell on the ground and died on the spot within three to four minutes. The accused persons had thereafter fled towards Jarolli. The complainant and his colleagues could not chase the accused as accused were having Tamanchas. The first informant, i.e., Bhure Lal met Kaptan Singh who reduced the FIR into writing and obtained his thumb impression thereon. The complaint so prepared was presented before the Officer of Shamsabad Police Station. After registering the complaint, Sub-Inspector Mahendra Nath visited the place of occurrence with Poohan Singh. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of those persons who were found to be conversant with the facts of the case. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and made arrangements for sending dead body for postmortem examination with all the documents through Constable Ranvir Singh and Shailendra Singh. On the basis of statements made by the first informant Bhure Lal, the Investigating Officer prepared map of scene of offence. From the clothes of the deceased, he seized currency notes worth Rs. 11/- which were smeared with blood as well as permit of diesel which was obtained by the deceased. The Investigating Officer also recovered four khokha karatoosh and 12 Bore Gun from the spot. On completion of investigation and receipt of report from Forensic Science Laboratory, the four accused were charge-sheeted in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class having jurisdiction in the matter for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. As the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Session, the case was committed by the Learned Magistrate to the Sessions Court for trial :

(3.) The Learned Judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 302, IPC and against other accused under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant and others. They pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. Therefore, prosecution examined several witnesses and produced documents to prove its case against the appellant and others.