SANT RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA and have taken through the record.

(2.) THE instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.9.2010 passed by Yogesh Kumar (H.J.S.) District and Sessions Judge Siddharth Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 2008 (State Versus Sant Ram and others) vide Case Crime No. 576 of 2007 under section 302 /34 IPC Police Station Khesraha District Siddharth Nagar whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment under section 302/34 IPC with fine of Rs. 1000/- against each and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellants had to undergo further imprisonment of two months.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are absolutely innocent . They are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case. There is no plausible explanation about the delay in lodging the first information report . There is great inconsistency in the prosecution version and the statement of the witnesses. From the post mortem of the victim, one incised wound on the left side of the neck, one abraded contusion on the laternal aspect of the left shoulder, one lacerated wound on the right index finger were found and according to the the doctor who had prepared the post mortem report, has opined that death has occurred due to hemorrhage on account of shock and ante-mortem injuries. It is contended by P.W.2 Sudhi Ram that his father Muniraj (P.W.3) had reached at his house , at that very juncture, the appellants armed with Spear (Farsa) chased complainant and his father to assault them . They encircled his house but on account of resistance, they could not succeed in entering the house. Just thereafter, they went at the paddy field of the complainant which was situated just contiguous to his house . The mother of the complainant was collecting the reaped paddy crops. They assaulted her with Spear (Farsa) . It is not mentioned in the first information report that they were inside the house but in the statement it has been stated that they remained in the house when attacked by the appellants then it would not have been possible for them to see that appellants were assaulting Smt. Sharmdei . The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case as there is only one incised wound on her neck whereas all the appellants are alleged to be armed with spear (Farsa) which creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version.