PRABHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out against the judg ment and order dated 15-10-1980 passed by the then IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr in Sessions Trial No. 352 of 1979 under Section 302 I. P. C. and Sections 147,148,323/1491. P. C. convicting and sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment, two years R. O. and one year R. I. respectively. All the senten ces were to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution version as avail able from the F. I. R. is that on 12-3-1979 at about 5. 30 p. m. the sister Smt. Rajbiri and daughter Soma of the informant have gone for bringing water from the well and the two were coming back with water. THEy were on the way, when wife of appel lant No. 2 started hurling abuses on them. THE informant alongwith Inder, Binnani and nephew Tejbir were present in the Baithak. THEy came out of the Baithak and asked why the abuses are being hurled. Immediately all the appellants started as saulting them. Amongst the assailants Prabhu and Chandra Bose were armed with Ballam, rest of the assailants were possessing lathies. In the assault Tejbir died at the spot due to Ballam injuries received on the chest by him. Binnani, Bhup Singh and Indar sustained lathi in juries. Prabhu prepared a written report Ex. Ka. 1 and submitted it at the police station Chandpur, district Bulandshahr. THE report was registered at the police station at 6 O'clock and general diary entries were prepared which were proved on record by the Investigating Officer. P. W. 6 Sukhbir Singh since the Head Moharrir has not been examined by the prosecution.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case has examined three eye- witnesses Bhup Singh P. W. 1, Inder P. W. 2 and Smt. Rajbiri P. W. 3. Rest of the witnesses examined by the prosecution formal wit nesses. Out of them P. W. 6 Sukhbir Singh is the Investigating Officer. P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 are the Medical Officers who have con ducted post mortem and the medical ex amination of the injured persons. Rest of the witnesses are wholly conjectural and details about them are not necessary for the decision of this case.