BARE LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NINE persons were put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1980 by being charged with committing offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302 /149, I.P.C. and also under Section 201, I.P.C. by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Banda. By judgment dated 16.8.1982, eight accused persons except appellant Barey Lal Singh were acquitted of the above noted charges. The appellant Barey Lal was held guilty only of committing offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. No sentence of fine was inflicted upon the appellant. The appellant has preferred the present appeal to challenge the correctness of the findings of guilt and appropriateness of the order of sentence dated 19.8.1982 passed by the learned trial Judge. The short facts which led to the trial which ultimately resulted into the impugned judgment, may be noticed.

(2.) IT was stated by the P.W. 1 Santosh Kumar, who happened to be the son of deceased Pitamber Lal, that while his father was sitting in the sun near the dilapidated well, all the nine accused persons named in the F.I.R. including the present appellant came there. Appellant Barey Lal Singh was armed with a licensed gun whereas acquitted accused Sabal Singh and Shatrughan were carrying bhala and other accused persons were armed with lathis. All the accused persons surrounded the deceased and confronted him by stating him as to how he was accusing them of committing theft of a bullock cart. It is stated that accused Ram Kripal remonstrated others to kill the deceased upon which the deceased raised a halla which attracted the informant (P.W. 1), Rameshwar Singh (not examined), Balram Singh (not examined), Udaibhan Singh (not examined) and other persons of the village including the mother of the informant namely Sukhdeiya (P.W. 2). It is stated that this appellant Barey Lal fired a shot which hit the deceased around his neck and he fell down there near the well. The Informant and other persons started raising alarms upon which the accused persons picked up the dead body of his father and threw it into the well.

(3.) AS may appear from the evidence of P.W. 5, S.I. Raj Narain Shukla, on the receipt of the written report at the police station which was presented by the P.W. 1, the Head Moharrir Devideen Singh drew up the F.I.R. (Ex. Ka -11) and also made entries in the relevant station diary. P.W. 5 stated that the officer -in -charge of the Police Station, Baberu was not present at the police station and he being the next senior officer available picked up all relevant documents and papers and rushed to the place of occurrence for investigation.