TUFANI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants herein Tufani (A-1) and Ram Krishan Pandey (A-2), both accused of Crime No.456 of 1979, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria, were tried by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria in S.T. No.372 of 1981, State Vs. Tufani and another and were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge. Whereas (A-1) was convicted u/s 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302/149 I.P.C. and was sentenced to one year R.I. on the first count, three months R.I. on the second count, one year R.I. on the third count, three months R.I. on the fourth count and life imprisonment on the last count, Ram Krishan Pandey (A-2) was convicted u/s 147, 323/149, 324, 149, 323/149, 324/149, 307, 149, 302/149 I.P.C. For the first offence he was sentenced to six months R.I., for the second crime three months R.I., for the third offence one year R.I., for the fourth offence three months R.I. and for the last crime imprisonment for life, vide impugned judgement and order dated 24.8.1982. Questioned in this appeal by the two appellants are to their aforesaid conviction and sentence.

(2.) PENDENTE lite final outcome of their appeals, Ram Krishan Pandey (A-2) expired and consequently his appeal was abated on 4.12.07.Appeal of sole surviving appellant Tufani (A-1), remains to be decided by us and we hereby proceed to do the same.

(3.) WITH an idea of uproot deceased families and grab their entire property that appellant (A-2) had instituted a criminal case against Shiv Narain (deceased No.2), and Chandra Deo, a year ago in which case they were acquitted two months prior to the present occurrence. Previous evening of the present incident at 6 p.m. (A-2) had visited informant and the deceased at their house and had threatened them to shoot them down and had also accosted deceased No.1 that he will set him right, for the reason that later (informant and his family members) had refused to plant his sugar cane crops by remonstrating (A-2) that he had implicated them in a false case. (A-1) was a friend of (A-2) and used to visit his house of and on and that is how he was known to the informant and his family members, who had no personal grudge or animosity with him.