ASHOK Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIVE accused persons were put on trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in a bunch of three Sessions Trials bearing Nos. 124, 125 and 126, all of year 2003 and by judgment dated 5.3.2005, two of them, namely, Om Pal and Jagdish Pal @ Munnu were acquitted of the charge under Section 302, I.P.C. r/w Section 120B, I.P.C. Out of the present set of three appeals Crl. Appeal No. 1499/2002, has been preferred by Ashok, Ravi Sharma and Pankaj @ Sonu, who were found guilty for committing offences under Sections 148 and 302 /149, I.P.C. and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for life respectively for their conviction under the two above counts with further sentence of fine of Rs. 5.000 being imposed upon each of them for their conviction under Section 302 /149. I.P.C. The learned trial Judge directed that in case of non -payment of fine, each of the three appellants was to suffer additional term of rigorous imprisonment for a year. Two of the appellants Ashok and Ravi Sharma were also tried for charges under Section 25 of the Arms Act and they were individually held guilty of committing that offence and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years as also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000, else to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. For their individual conviction under Section 25, Arms Act, appellants Ashok and Ravi Sharma preferred separate -connected -appeals bearing Nos. 1668/2005 and 1669/2005. For. the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed by a common judgment, we have heard the three appeals together and are disposing them of by this judgment. P.W. 1 Smt. Suman Devi, who happened to be the wife of deceased Baljeet Singh, filed a written report at P.S. Mundali in the district of Meerut, stating therein that she alongwith her husband, deceased Baljeet Singh, her father -in -law Mahkar Singh (not examined), her daughter Kumari Baby (not examined) and the elder brother of her husband, namely, Udaivir Singh (P.W. 2) were de -weeding her sugarcane field from about 9 a.m. on 3.7.2002. At about 10 a.m., the informant stated, they came to drink water at the tube -well and while they were drinking, the three appellants alongwith two unknown persons came there with arms and fired at her husband telling him that he had to be taught a lesson on account of having contested the elections. P.W. 1 stated that they had fired multiple shots, as a result of which her husband Baljeet Singh breathed his last on the spot.

(2.) IT was stated by P.W. 1 in her written report that she raised hue and cry, which attracted Bhanwar Singh (not examined), and Indra Raj Singh (not examined) to the scene of occurrence, who also saw accused persons running away from the spot. It was stated further that while running away, the accused persons warned her that in case she lodged a report by informing the police and had further deposed against them, she shall also have to face the same consequences. P.W. 1 stated that the murder of her husband had been committed only because of the animosity which arose on account of elections and under the conspiracy hatched out by acquitted accused persons Om Pal and Jagdish Pal @ Munnu, P.W. 1 stated that she had come with a written report to lodge the case.

(3.) P .W. 10, S.I. R.K. Singh, was the Officer In -charge of P.S. Mundali and he stated that the F.I.R. of the case was drawn up in his presence and he. thereafter, took up the investigation of the same by recording the statement of P.W. 1 In the Station Diary. He. thereafter, started with a contingent of armed constables by the official vehicle to the place of occurrence and reached village Ataula, where the incident had occurred. He was shown the place of occurrence by the informant and after inspecting the same, he drew up the site plan with all necessary details, which has been marked Ex. Ka -14. He, thereafter, held the inquest on the dead body of deceased Baljeet Singh and got the report prepared by A.S.I. Satyapal Vats, who was accompanying him and also got the dead body sealed and despatched to the hospital for post -mortem examination with other relevant records. P.W. 10, during the course of inspection of place of occurrence, seized the blood -stained earth by preparing the memo in that behalf, in the presence of witnesses. The seizure memo was marked Ex. Ka -7. During the course of evidence, P.W. 10 produced a bundle of clothes. worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence and also produced before the court below the seized bloodstained earth. P.W. 10 stated that he made search of the accused persons before arresting them but could not find anyone. He received the copy of the post -mortem report on 4.7.2002 and, thereafter, recorded the statement of witnesses on different dates.