ACHAL BEHARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. K. Saxena, J. Achal Behari and Awadh Behari, appellants, are real brothers They reside in village Padumpur, within Police Circle Meerganj, district Jaunpur. Suraj Bali, who indisputably, died of violance on the 2nd of June, 1978, was also a resident of that village This is also not disputed that Suraj Bali had been assaulted by lathi on the morning of the said date, as a consequence whereof his life ebbed out two hours there after. These appellants are said to be responsible for causing injuries at about 7 a. m. on that date near a 'pokhra in the vacant field of Krishnanand Tewari, which is at a distance of about 1 1/2 furlongs from the house of Suraj Bali towards south-east. A report of this incident was allegedly made at the police station at 11. 30 a. m. by Rajendra Prasad, real nephew of the deceased. The names of these appel lants figure as assailants in the report. The crime was registered and after usual investigation, they were charge- sheeted as a consequence where of the case was committed to the Court of Session. They were tried for committing the murder of Suraj Bali on the said date, time and place an oifence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referered to as the Code ). . Accepting the testimony of Rajendra Prasad and Vijai, respectively, P. Ws. 1 and 4, who gave an ocular account of the incident, the learned Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, concluded that each appellant had used lathi in inflicting injuries on the person of Suraj Bali, whose death was homicidal. In his opinion, the case did not fall with in the ambit of Section 302 of the Code. He was of the view that the provisions of Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of the Code were attracted and, therefore, he acquitted each appellant on the charge of murder instead, convicted him under the said section with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of live years.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this decision dated the 30th of April, 1979, of Sessions Trial No. 205 of 1978 : State v. Achal Behari and Avadh Behari, both the accused have preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE learned trial judge has accepted the sworn testimony of a near relation of the deceased and a resident of the same village. Both have given cogent reasons for being near the place of incident at the relevant time. It was half-heartedly argued on behalf of the appellants that the first witness is a relation of the deceased and, therefore, his evidence be not attached import ance. THE learned trial Judge has given sound reasons for rejecting this con tention and I am in perfect agreement with him on the point; merely because a relation has come forward to make a deposition, his evidence cannot be stamped as untrue and false. It is noteworthy that Abadi of the village is about a furlong and It is in the statement of even the witness, Durga Prasad, P. W. 2, who has not supported assault part of the prosecution version, that he heard cries and shouts from Abadi at about 7-8 a. m. to the effect that Suraj Bali had been murdere d and then he went to that place. THE defence did not cross-examine him o n that point. THE occurrence had taken place in the month of June. THE place was visible from the 'abadi'. It cannot be conceived that Suraj Bali was fatally wounded at a time when it was dark and he was found in an injured condition about 3 hours after the incident. THE shouts and cries of Suraj Bali on receiving lathi, blows must have, in all probability, attracted persons of the village and, therefore, it is idle to suggest, that the assault was made at a time when it was dark and the assailan escaped under the cover of darkness. THE learned trial Judge has rightly concluded that the time and place of incident have been correctly given by the prose cution and the witnesses. He repelled the contention that there has been a delay in making the report. THE reasons given therefor do not suffer from any infirmity. THE report makes the appellants responsible for the alleged assault and its contents corroborate the statement of the informant, Rajendra Prasad, P. W. 1, on relevant and material points.