VIRENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PALOK Basu and B. P. Singh, JJ. These two connected criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 27. 2. 90/28. 2. 90 passed by II Addl. Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1982.

(2.) BY the said judgment appellant Virendra has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. for the murders of Sudershan and Ram Saran sentenced to death thereunder. Appellant Subhash has been convicted under Section 302 I. P. C. for the murder of Sudershan and convicted under Sections 302/1491. P. C. for the murder of Ram Saran alias Bhaiya Lal and sentenced to imprisonment for life on those two counts. Rest all the appellants namely Dujja, Vidhya, Ram Autar S/o Naram, Ram Autar S/o Lallu, and Surendra have also been convicted under Sections 302/149 I. P. C. for the murders of Ram Saran and Sudershan and sentenced to imprisonment for life. Appellant Virendra, Subhash, Dujja, Vidhya have been further convicted and sentenced under Section 148 I. P. C. to three year's R. I. whereas appellants Ram Autar S/o Narain, Ram Autar S/o Lallu and Surendra have been further convicted and sentenced under Section 147 I. P. C. two year's R. I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) IT may be mentioned here that the F. I. R. was duly proved during the trial as Ext. K. a-1. AJ a later siage the appellants wanted to challenge the signature and handwriting of Ram Shanker and therefore, the said witness Ram Shanker, P. W. 1 was recalled and had replied to a quesiion that he had written out the F. I. R. in his own handwriting and had lodged it himself. After this, the trial Judge had, for the reasons best known to him, on an application of the accused, permitted the original F. I. R. to be sent to the handwriting expert. At this, the handwriting expert, P. W 8 Prakash Chandra Pathak has given an opinion that the original F. I. R. Ext. Ka-1 was in the handwriting of P. W. 1. He has further deposed that he had despatched the original F. I. R. by Post, addressed to the trial Judge. But this letter was refused by the office of the trial Judge, which refusal has been duly proved by Bhagwati Prasad, P. W. 7 who was Dy. Manager, Post & Telegraphs department. During the trial, the photostat copy of the original F. I. R. as photographed by the Expert was proved as Ext. Ka-21 and is on record. Suffice it to say for the time being that after the alleged refusal of the office of trial Judge to accept the envelop from the Expert, the said envelop was weeded out. The fact thus remains that the original F. I. R. is no more avail able. But for the reasons stated in the discussion herein below, it will not affect the prosecution case at all and the eye-witness account furnished by the prosecution in the instant case if believed can be the safe basis for upholding the judgment of the trial Judge.