RAM NATH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Nath, the appellant before us, was arraigned before the learned Sessions Judge Mirzapur for the murder of his father Dukhi. The trial ended in an order of conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life. Aggrieved thereby he has filed the instant appeal. Bereft of details, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant along with his wife, children and father used to live in village Gobi Bandh within the police station Pannuganj. On July 20, 1979 at or about the time of sun rise when the village Chaukidar Lal Ji (P.W. 1) along with some others was returning to their respective houses after attending the call of nature and had reached near the house of the appellant, they heard cries coming there from They rushed to his house and on entering the courtyard found the appellant cutting the neck of his father with sickle. Immediately thereafter he ran away from his house leaving the sickle there. As a result of the injury inflicted by the appellant Dukhi died within a short time.

(2.) LAL Ji then went to the police station and lodged a report about the incident. On the basis thereof a case was registered and Sub -Inspector Ram Shanker Singh (P.W. 9) took up investigation of the case. He left for village Goti Bandh and on reaching the house of Dukhi he first held inquest upon his dead body which was lying in the courtyard and sent it for postmortem examination. He then seized the sickle which was lying near the dead body, prepared a sketch map and recorded statement of witnesses and went in search of the appellant but could not trace him. On the following day (21 -7 -1979), however, he succeeded in arresting him from inside a forest On completion of investigation he submitted charge -sheet against the appellant and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Session.

(3.) TO prove its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses but no witness was examined on behalf of the defence. Though five witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely. Lal Ji (P.W. 1) Mohar Pal (P.W. 2) Smt. Sugwantiya (P.W. 3). Parasnath Misra (P.W. 6) and Jayee (P.W. 5) to give ocular version of the incident, P.W. 2, 3 and 6, however, did not give such version and hence they were declared hostile by the prosecution. In that context the prosecution rested its case primarily upon the evidence of Lal Ji (P.W.1) and Jayee (P.W. 5).