KANT PATHAK Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from Jail by accused appellant Sri Kant Pathak son of Deochand Pathak is directed against his conviction under Section 304, I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Sessions Judge, Ghazipur by an order dated 23-11-1977 in S.T. No. 131 of 1977.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the conviction and appeal may briefly be narrated as under: There was some altercation between the accused Sri Kant Pathak and one Pradip son of Teju Kamkar in the presence of his sister Km. Sumitra Kumari wherein Sri Kant is said to have given some beating to Pradip under an impression that Pradip had stolen some of his grains. Kesho Prasad and Kirshna Mohan Giri and some other lads intervened, and got Pradip released. Coming to know of this incident, wife of Teju and mother of Pradip went to the house of Sri Kant after some time to protest against the action of Sri Kant. There was some exchange of hot words and in the meanwhile Smt. Sunri, an aunt of Kesho Prasad uttered a sentence 'Maru Re Chandra Deoua Ke Doglawa Ke Man Barh Gail Ba, meaning that bastard son of Chandra Deo had become very proud and he be beaten. The accused is the son of Chandra Deo. Upon this the accused is said to have gone inside the house and came back with a Gandasa and holding Smt. Sunri assaulted in her neck causing her death almost instantaneously. The others standing thereby got frightened and could not catch hold of him.

(3.) A first information report conveying the above facts was lodged at the police station by Kesho Prasad, who was also later examined as P.W. 1, at about 13.30 hours the same day, that is, an hour and a half after the occurrence, the distance of the police station being six miles. It was also shown later in the evidence that even before the first information report was lodged at the police station, another Sub inspector of Police, namely, P.W. 5 Prebhunath Singh happened to be there on his way back from some other place and the weapon of attack Gandasa was recovered or discovered at the instance of accused in his presence. After report, investigation was taken up by P.W. 8 Dina Nath Dubey, Sub Inspector, who was then Station Officer and by the time he reached the spot, the above said recovery or discovery had already taken place. He proceeded with the usual inquest and sent the body for post mortem examination and also interrogated the witnesses.