ARVIND @ PATTU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appeals, each by one of the two convicts of Sessions Trial No. 440 of 2002, question the correctness of the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in the above noted Sessions Trial on 5.2.2009 by which appellant Arvind @ Pattu was held guilty of committing offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and the appellant of the other appeal, namely, Babloo @ Rakesh was convicted of offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. After being heard on 6.2.2009 on the quantum of sentence, each of the two appellants was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-, else, to suffer further period of imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The two appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(3.) The written report (Ex. Ka-1) filed by P.W. 1-Ghasi Ram, who happened to be father of the deceased Om Prakash, was the basis of the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka-2). It was stated that a dispute regarding tenancy had ensued between the informant and the father of the two appellants, namely, Jagannath. It is not denied that Jagannath along with his family including the two appellants was residing as tenant in part of the house of the informant. It was alleged that appellant Babloo @ Rakesh on account of tenancy dispute had hurled abuses at informant Ghasi Ram and, on that account, the deceased Om Prakash at about 8 p.m. on 1.7.2001 had accosted appellant Rakesh @Babloo to confront him as to why he had abused his father. It turned into exchange of hot words, hearing which, the informant stated, he, his son Jai Prakash (not examined) and Sripal (P.W.2) came into the lane where the deceased had hot discussion with appellant Rakesh @ Babloo. Besides the above persons, Pammi @ Manoj (P.W. 7) and Neelkamal (not examined) also came there. In the meantime, it is said that appellant Arvind @ Pattu and his brother Surendra @ Gunesh arrived there with country made pistols and, seeing them coming, appellant Rakesh @ Babloo remonstrated them to kill the deceased upon which appellant Arvind @ Pattu fired a shot into the chest of the deceased as a result of which he fell down. The three accused persons, i.e., the two appellants and Gunesh @ Surendra made good their escape from the the scene of occurrence. The informant stated that as the accused persons were armed with country made pistols, he was frightened to go near his son but his son Jai Prakash and the other mohalla-people picked him up to take him to the hospital where the doctor declared him dead. The informant thereafter went to the police station and requested to register the case on the basis of Ex. Ka-1.